get_settings

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: returns all settings, single setting by key/alias, or filtered by category. It implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly mention side effects or invariants. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences that get directly to the point with zero waste. Each sentence describes a distinct usage pattern.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not detail the structure of a setting object or provide examples of the return format. This leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent about what keys and values to expect.

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 already describes parameters with high coverage, but the description adds significant value by explaining the impact of each argument mode (no args, key, category) and providing examples of natural-language aliases, which is beyond the schema's type-only description.

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 tool retrieves SupaSidebar settings. It distinguishes three modes (no args, key, category) and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like update_setting by focusing on retrieval.

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 explains when to use each argument combination. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use the tool (e.g., for modification), though this is implied by sibling context.

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