fields_get_settings

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses that the GitHub update token is returned only as { set: boolean } and never raw, plus that JSON sync path and writability are included. This is meaningful behavioral/pitfall context beyond the schema. It doesn't spell out permission requirements, which is a minor gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the key return-value caveat. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the notable return fields (token redaction state, sync path, writability). It doesn't enumerate the full settings payload, but for a simple one-param getter it is nearly 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% and the single 'site' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the site parameter beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get cvrt-fields settings'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling fields_update_settings. However, it does not explicitly name its siblings or scope against fields_status/fields_get_schema, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only getter nature (read settings before changing them), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives like fields_update_settings. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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