qui_get_dashboard_settings

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already provides. It states the HTTP method (GET) which aligns with the annotation but does not mention authentication, response format, error handling, or any other operational traits. Since the annotation already covers safety, there is no extra transparency contributed.

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, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the endpoint and then provides the parameter-passing convention. There is no redundant or vacuous wording; every clause carries necessary information.

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?

The description adequately covers the generic pattern for a GET endpoint and relies on the output schema for return details. However, it does not specify which path, query, or body parameters this particular endpoint expects, leaving the agent dependent on external API knowledge to populate arguments. This is a clear gap for a self-contained tool description.

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 input schema is a generic free-form 'arguments' object with 0% property description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the critical convention: path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON body in arguments.body. This is essential for constructing valid calls and goes far beyond the schema's minimal information.

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 identifies the tool as a wrapper for the GET /dashboard-settings endpoint, specifying the HTTP verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_update_dashboard_settings, which performs the opposite operation. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. It focuses entirely on how to structure arguments (path, query, body) but omits context such as 'use this to retrieve dashboard settings' or when this is preferable to other tools. Usage is only implied by the endpoint name.

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