get_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only intent ('查看'), excludes secrets from the response, and warns against modifying the repository. It does not explicitly state absence of side effects or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter getter the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core purpose, then add ordering guidance and sibling routing without redundant filler. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 no-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the return scope (current mode and send whitelist), the non-secret nature, when to call it first, and how to perform related operations. No critical context is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not introduce any conflicting or misleading parameter behavior.

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 opens with the specific action '查看当前档位（read/draft/send）和发送白名单', naming the exact resource and its scope. It also clarifies what the tool does NOT return ('不含密钥'), which removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from other settings-related tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('每个新任务应先调用') and routes related actions to siblings (add_mailbox, unbind_mailbox). It omits an explicit reference to set_settings as the counterpart for changing settings, so the distinction from all siblings is not fully closed.

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