Contract Testing: Get System Preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation — no return format, authentication needs, or side-effect caveats. With annotations present, the description does little to enhance behavioral transparency.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action. The 'Toolset' and 'Parameters' lines add minor context but are somewhat redundant with the schema and name. Overall it is concise and clear, though not every line is strictly necessary.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema, so the description should provide some hint about what the returned preferences look like. It also does not clarify how system preferences relate to user preferences, which would help an agent choose correctly among siblings.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes what is needed. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description's 'Parameters: None' note is redundant but harmless.

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 specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('system-wide preferences'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling contract-testing_get_user_preferences through the 'system-wide' qualifier, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 implies this tool is for system preferences rather than user preferences, and the toolset label 'User, Tokens and Preferences' provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like contract-testing_get_user_preferences or contract-testing_get_current_user.

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