seerr_list_settings_about

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true indicates a safe read operation, and the description matches that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation. It doesn't disclose what specific statistics are returned, whether authentication is needed, or any other operational traits. Given the simplicity, a score of 2 reflects minimal transparency beyond 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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and resource ('server stats'). While extremely brief, it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could benefit from a bit more specificity without becoming verbose.

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?

For a tool with many siblings, the description is too terse to be fully contextual. It doesn't clarify what 'server stats' includes or how it relates to the settings/about naming. Even with an output schema present (which we don't see), the description alone leaves ambiguity about the exact purpose and scope. The tool appears simple, but the vague wording undermines completeness.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides no parameter meaning to add to. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. Per the calibration, baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is consistent with that.

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 server stats' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read operation for server statistics. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'seerr_list_status' or 'seerr_list_settings_main', which could also return server-related information. The name 'settings_about' suggests it's about server information, but 'stats' is somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning exclusions or sibling tools. There is no context about whether this should be preferred over 'seerr_list_status' for health checks or 'seerr_list_settings_main' for configuration views.

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