get_settings_json_parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Get available fields' is consistent. No additional behavioral details are provided beyond the purpose (e.g., side effects, performance, error handling). The description adds little value beyond annotations, making a score of 3 appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no redundant or missing information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has no output schema and the description does not clarify the return format (e.g., list of strings, map of field names to types). Given many sibling tools that provide similar functionality from different contexts (e.g., get_settings_fields, get_project_json_parameters), the description could be more complete by stating what 'available fields' means or which tables are valid. The current brevity leaves gaps for an agent to resolve.

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 sole parameter 'table' is described in the schema as 'Table name to get available fields for', which already provides clear semantics. The description does not add extra meaning or constraints (e.g., acceptable table names, case sensitivity), and with 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is justified.

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?

Description clearly states the action (get) and resource (available fields for table) and hints at usage context (generic add/update operations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_settings_fields and get_project_json_parameters by specifying 'table' and 'add/update operations', though could be more precise about 'available fields'.

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 the tool is used to retrieve fields for add/update operations, providing context for when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison with similar siblings (e.g., get_project_json_parameters, get_user_custom_json_parameters), leaving the agent to infer without clear boundaries.

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