map_get_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the primary behavior (returning settings) but does not explicitly disclose read-only semantics, absence of side effects, or potential error conditions. However, for a trivial getter, the core behavior is communicated sufficiently.

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 a single, compact sentence that lists all returned settings. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures what is returned by enumerating the exact field names. It is complete for the tool's purpose, and the sibling context (e.g., map_update_settings) makes the read-only nature evident.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It correctly lists the returned fields, which is relevant context.

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's function with the verb 'Return' and specifies the exact resource ('current app settings') along with the specific fields returned. It is distinguishable from siblings like map_update_settings, which modifies settings, and map_get_state, which gets overall state.

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 implies usage ('Return current app settings') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention map_update_settings or other related getters, so the context is only implied by the sibling names.

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