cigchat_workspace_settings_live_chat_sidebar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that this is a GET request (read-only) and states the required authentication scope. While it does not describe the response format or error behavior, for a zero-parameter getter this is adequate transparency.

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 sentence that leads with the action and resource, then includes the endpoint and scope requirement. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff or redundant 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the returned Live Chat Sidebar settings contain. It does not, leaving the exact structure of the response undefined. However, for a simple read operation with no parameters, the name and endpoint may be sufficient in context, but the missing response detail prevents a higher score.

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 already covers this completely (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter-level details, and it does not attempt to, making this a baseline score for a no-parameter tool.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('workspace settings - Live Chat Sidebar'), explicitly noting the HTTP GET endpoint. This distinguishes it from the sibling update tool (cigchat_workspace_settings_update_live_chat_sidebar) which modifies settings instead of reading them.

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 provides the required 'Manage Team' scope as a prerequisite, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there is no mention of the read-only nature being a reason to prefer it over update operations. Usage is implied by the tool's name and purpose rather than explicitly stated.

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