get-setting-values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the key response attributes (value as default, ordered rolloutRules and percentageRules) and explains their meaning. This provides useful behavioral context beyond a simple read operation. However, it does not cover error conditions or side effects, which prevents a higher score.

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 structured into clear paragraphs but is somewhat verbose, especially with the explanation of rolloutRules and percentageRules and an external link. It could be more concise while retaining key information. The essential purpose is front-loaded, which is good.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the important response attributes. However, it omits error handling, validations, and potential edge cases (e.g., invalid IDs). It also does not mention the hierarchical relationship between configs, environments, and settings. The external reference partly compensates.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (configId and environmentId) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by placing them in the context of configs, environments, and the tool's purpose, explaining how they identify the specific setting value. This goes beyond the schema's basic identifiers.

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 that the tool returns the value of a config's feature flags or settings for a given environment. It specifies the parameters and the response contains value, rolloutRules, and percentageRules. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get-setting-value or get-setting-values-v2, which could cause ambiguity.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention when not to use it, such as if only a single value is needed or if the user wants a different version of the API. With multiple similar tools, this omission reduces usability.

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