openpanel_get_project_settings

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

No annotations are provided, requiring the description to carry full behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies read-only access, the description does not confirm safety characteristics (idempotency, no side effects), rate limits, or authentication requirements that would typically be covered by annotations.

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 appropriately brief, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata that adds no value for tool selection. The single sentence is front-loaded but lacks substantive content to justify its structure.

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 lack of output schema, missing annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description provides inadequate context. A read operation with two required parameters requires at minimum parameter explanations and ideally a description of what configuration settings are returned.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented 'site' and 'project_id' parameters. It completely fails to do so, leaving critical parameters unexplained (e.g., whether 'site' expects a domain, URL, or identifier, and the expected format for 'project_id').

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 the core action ('Get') and resource ('project configuration settings'), providing basic clarity. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'openpanel_get_project', leaving ambiguity about whether this retrieves general project metadata or specific configuration settings.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'openpanel_get_project' or 'openpanel_update_project_settings'. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise rather than usage guidance.

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