fulfillment_get_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: secret values are masked as { set: boolean } and never returned raw. That is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before reading settings. It stops short of stating auth requirements or read-only confirmation, but the masking disclosure is substantive.

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 with no filler; the resource scope is front-loaded and the return-shape caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 and no annotations, the description correctly compensates by explaining the shape of sensitive return values. What an agent needs to call this safely and interpret secrets is largely present, though the full non-secret return shape is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'site' param is already documented as 'Site id (see list_sites)'. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and a precisely scoped resource ('cvrt-order-fulfillment plugin settings'), which separates it from siblings like fulfillment_status or fulfillment_queue. It does not explicitly name the contrasting sibling (fulfillment_update_settings), but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this to inspect configuration before fulfillment_update_settings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only implied by the getter/updater naming convention among siblings.

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