Settings: cors list

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing that Anythink's own domains and localhost are always allowed and are deliberately omitted from the output. That implicit-entry behavior is not derivable from annotations or schema. It doesn't mention pagination or output format, which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, then the important omission caveat, then the routing to mutation siblings. No filler.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains what the list contains, what is intentionally excluded, and where to change it. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already establishes.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (allowed application URLs / web app origins allowed to call this project's API), immediately scoped to the project's API. It also names the two sibling tools that mutate the same list, so an agent can tell it apart from settings_cors_add/remove without opening schemas.

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 sentence 'Change the list with `settings_cors_add` and `settings_cors_remove`' clearly routes mutations elsewhere, implying this tool is the read/inspection path. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need to audit or display allowed origins' statement, but the alternative is named.

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