rlm_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets settings and mentions the refresh parameter, but does not explain side effects, cost of forcing refresh, or what the return value contains. Lack of output schema exacerbates the gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly improved by adding a brief note on output format without becoming verbose.

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 getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and key settings examples, but omits details about the response format and any behavioral nuances. A more complete description would mention that it returns a JSON object of current settings.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter (refresh). The description adds examples of settings (max_tokens, search_mode) but does not elaborate on the refresh parameter beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra meaning over the schema.

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 gets 'current project settings from dashboard' with specific examples (max_tokens, search_mode). The verb 'Get' and resource 'project settings' are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rlm_state_get or rlm_context which serve different purposes.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for different scenarios. The description offers no strategic context for tool selection.

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