inspect_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add behavioral context by explaining the default path behavior (defaults to SEARXNG_SETTINGS_PATH) and the read-only nature implied by 'inspect'. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no modifications or what happens if the path is invalid.

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 concise: two sentences. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a clear argument explanation. No redundant content or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description adequately covers the essential function and the parameter. However, it lacks usage context and explicit behavioral guarantees (e.g., read-only disclosure), which are important for an agent to choose and invoke it safely.

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 schema has no property descriptions (coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining 'settings_path: Optional path to settings.yml. Defaults to SEARXNG_SETTINGS_PATH.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type/title, clarifying optionality, purpose, and default behavior.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Inspect SearXNG configuration settings and active/disabled engines from settings.yml.' It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and identifies the resource (configuration and engine status), distinguishing it from sibling tools that modify engines or restart the container.

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 does not mention conditions like 'before enabling/disabling engines' or any exclusions. There is no explicit or implied usage context beyond the basic action.

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