seerr_get_user_settings_notifications

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys the safe read-only nature. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens if the user_id does not exist, whether defaults are returned, or any authentication requirements. It merely restates the action implied by the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise sentence, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only) and has an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. The main missing element is a note about user existence or distinction from related notification tools, but for a basic getter, the description is adequate and does not leave critical gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single required parameter, user_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description's phrase 'for a user' provides minimal context that user_id identifies the target user, but it does not clarify whether this is an internal ID, how to obtain it, or whether the user must exist. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get notification settings for a user' uses a specific verb ('get') and names the exact resource ('notification settings for a user'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like seerr_get_user_settings_main or system-level notification channel settings, as it specifies the user scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention the corresponding create/update tool (seerr_create_user_settings_notifications) or clarify that this is read-only compared to system-level notification settings. There are no exclusions or context clues beyond the name itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.