game_settings

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

Even with no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: one-hour caching per exact query, no delta protocol, no auto-fetching, bounded cache, response size limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations provide and gives the agent concrete expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs in caveats about caching, delta behavior, limits, and truncation. It is dense but not bloated; each sentence conveys a distinct behavioral constraint. It could be tightened slightly, but the structure is logical and efficient.

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 simple read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers cache behavior, request semantics, response limits, and error handling for oversized records. It does not describe the shape of the settings body, but 'full settings body' gives a basic sense of the return value. The ambiguous 'Required inputs' sentence slightly weakens 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for version and config_version by explaining they are not a delta protocol and that matching values still return the full settings body. However, it does not clarify valid formats, whether values are matched against current versions, or what happens when they are omitted.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Read current public settings from the API.' This distinguishes it from many player- or market-specific siblings, and the 'public settings' scope adds meaning. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other settings-like siblings such as purchase_settings or game_maintenance.

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 opening sentence implies the tool is for retrieving current public settings, giving clear context. But it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or sibling alternatives. With a large sibling list containing several similar settings-related tools, this guidance is only implicit.

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