technitium_settings_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read all server settings' correctly signals a non-mutating, unfiltered read, which is the key behavioral fact. It says nothing about auth requirements, whether values are redacted, or rate/latency characteristics, so gaps remain for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 action is front-loaded in the first line, with the parameter note kept short. The trailing whitespace and bare 'server:' label are slightly sloppy but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single parameter is documented. For a low-risk read of one parameter this is close to complete; only the absence of any when-to-use guidance keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 0% — the only property is an untitled 'server' string defaulting to empty. The description compensates by explaining what the parameter means (which Technitium server, for multi-server setups) and giving the accepted sentinel value 'all'. This is genuinely additive over 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 and resource: 'Read all server settings.' The 'all' scope is clear and distinguishes it from a filtered read. However it does not name its obvious sibling technitium_settings_set, so the get/set pairing is left for the agent to infer.

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 only implied — an agent infers 'use this to inspect settings, use settings_set to change them.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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