Get parsed server settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate that the operation is a read ('Read the main .ini') and that it returns a parsed object, which conveys the core behavior. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, error conditions, or requirements such as permissions or file existence. The description is adequate but lacks richness beyond the basic read-and-parse behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and includes just enough usage guidance. There is zero redundancy or filler; every sentence serves a purpose. It is a model of concise, effective tool documentation.

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 tool with a single optional parameter, no required fields, an output schema, and a read-only nature, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from the raw-file alternative. The output schema handles return value details, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 description coverage is 100% because the single parameter (service_id) has a full description with default and meaning. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 for high coverage. The description's focus on settings output is not tied to the parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Read'), the resource ('the main .ini'), and the outcome ('return it as a parsed key/value object'). It also distinguishes from the sibling pz_read_file by emphasizing that this returns parsed data, making it easier for specific setting lookups. The examples (password, max players, PVP, public name) further clarify the tool's specific purpose.

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 explicitly tells the user when to call this tool: 'Call this when the user asks about a specific setting'. It also implies the alternative of reading the raw file, which corresponds to pz_read_file, and positions this tool as easier for that use case. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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