get_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely drops it: it never says whether values are cached locally or queried from the device, what the refresh parameter does to that behavior, or what happens when the robot is offline or busy. For a read tool this is lower-risk, but the caching/freshness semantics of a settings read are exactly the thing an agent needs and they are absent.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loaded on what the tool yields. It is efficient, though the field enumeration is somewhat list-like and pushes out any usage or parameter context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the field list usefully previews scope. However, with zero annotations and an undocumented refresh parameter, an agent still cannot tell whether the data is live or cached — a meaningful gap for a settings read.

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?

There is one parameter, refresh, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description was the only place to explain it — and it is never mentioned. The enumerated fields describe the return payload, not the input, so they do not compensate for the parameter gap.

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 identifies a specific resource — current cleaning settings — and enumerates exactly which settings are returned (suction, carpet boost, edge clean, pad wetness, etc.), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_status or set_setting. The retrieval verb is only implied by 'Current...', not stated outright, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the obvious alternative set_setting, nor any mention of prerequisites or freshness expectations. The reader must infer from the name that this is the read counterpart to the writer tools.

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