qui_get_cross_seed_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'GET' confirms a read operation. No additional behavioral context (side effects, scope, auth) is provided, which is acceptable for a simple fetch but adds little beyond the annotation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint, no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple GET operation and the presence of an output schema, the description covers invocation essentials. It doesn't enumerate specific endpoint parameters, but the generic argument convention is sufficient for a basic settings fetch.

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 0% with a single free-form 'arguments' property. The description compensates by explaining how to route path variables, query values, and request body, which is essential for correctly invoking the tool.

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 calls the GET /cross-seed/settings endpoint, specifying the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update or patch settings, even though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

It provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, but implies it's for reading cross-seed settings. The argument-structuring advice is more about invocation than selection criteria.

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