seerr_list_settings_main

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation provides, such as the scope of 'main settings' or any response characteristics, though this is partially mitigated by the output schema.

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, 'Get main settings', which is appropriately front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place for such a simple read operation.

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?

Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more descriptive about what constitutes 'main settings', but the presence of the output schema reduces the need for the description to explain return values.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline score of 4 applies given the trivial parameter surface.

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 uses a clear verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'main settings', making the basic purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling settings tools like seerr_list_settings_network, but the 'main' qualifier provides reasonable differentiation within the tool family.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as seerr_create_settings_main or seerr_list_settings_network. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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