alphaportal_get_settings

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds useful context beyond that by specifying what the settings contain (notification types and features). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional meaning regarding the tool's output scope.

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, succinct sentence that leads with the action and resource. The parenthetical clarifies scope without redundancy. Every word earns its place; no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description provides enough context for an agent to know what it returns (portal settings) and its scope (district). It could potentially mention the output format, but this is minor since the name and description make the purpose clear.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per calibration, a baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter information since there are none. It does explain the purpose of the returned data, which is sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('portal feature/visibility settings'), and further clarifies it refers to 'which notification types and features are enabled for this district.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alphaportal_set_notification (which modifies settings) and alphaportal_list_notifications (which likely lists notifications).

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 usage ('when you need to know which features are enabled') but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Since it is a simple getter with no parameters, the guidance is adequate but not explicit about alternatives or exclusions.

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