seo_get_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose an important security trait: secret values are returned as { set: boolean } and never raw. However, it does not mention permission requirements, side effects, or the shape of non-secret returned settings, leaving notable behavioral gaps for a settings-getter with no output schema.

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 two short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the important secret-handling caveat follows immediately. Every sentence 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?

For a simple one-parameter getter, the description covers the purpose and a critical return-value caveat about secrets. It does not explain the shape of non-secret settings, but the tool is low-complexity and the schema fully covers the only parameter, making the description largely 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 description coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter 'site' is already documented in the schema as 'Site id (see list_sites)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (cvrt-seo-manager settings), distinguishing it from the sibling seo_update_settings mutation. It does not explicitly contrast with other read-oriented siblings such as seo_export_settings or seo_status, so it is clear but lacks sibling 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like seo_update_settings or seo_export_settings. The read-only intent is implied by 'Get', but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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