anythingllm_get_system_settings

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 content detail (what settings are included) but no further behavioral context such as pagination, exact return format, or side effects. Since annotations carry the safety burden, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 without filler. It conveys the core purpose and content efficiently, earning its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no parameters, a simple read-only operation, and an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It doesn't need to explain return values because the schema handles that, and annotations cover safety. The tool is small and well-specified by the existing structured data.

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 there is nothing to explain. The description still adds meaning by listing examples of returned settings, which helps the agent understand what the tool returns. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a clear resource ('AnythingLLM system settings'), with examples of content ('LLM provider, vector DB, embeddings'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_workspace or list_models by targeting system-level 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you need system settings) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to use. No alternatives are mentioned, so it falls at 'implied usage' rather than clear context or exclusions.

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