Sigma Get Org Setting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value by listing valid setting names, which goes beyond the structured data. It doesn't describe return format or errors, but those are minor given the read-only, single-parameter design.

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 sentence followed by a compact list. The purpose is front-loaded, and every element earns its place—no filler or redundancy with annotations.

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?

For a read-only getter with one parameter, the description provides all necessary input guidance (the valid values), and the presence of an output schema covers the return. Nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by enumerating all ten valid values for setting_name. This turns an otherwise opaque string parameter into a well-defined set, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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 states a clear verb (get) on a specific resource (organization setting) and enumerates all ten valid setting names, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is naturally distinguished from the sibling sigma_update_org_setting which handles writes.

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 this is the read-only counterpart to sigma_update_org_setting but does not explicitly state when to use it or name alternatives. The list of settings implicitly guides selection, but there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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