get-setting-value-v2

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation (returns value) and explains key response fields, but does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes verbose with lengthy explanations of response fields and an external link. It could be more concise while retaining essential information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly covers response fields (defaultValue, targetingRules, percentageEvaluationAttribute) and provides extra context like ordering and external documentation. For a simple getter with 2 parameters, this is quite complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it only mentions environmentId in context. The detailed response field explanation is not parameter-related.

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 the tool returns the value of a Feature Flag or Setting, with specific details about response fields. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-setting-values' by focusing on a single setting, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the v1 'get-setting-value'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-setting-value' or 'get-setting-values'. Usage is implied from the tool name and description, but no direct guidance or exclusion is provided.

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