kodi_addon_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of behavioral context: results are 'redacted' and the payload differs based on a 'Manager' context (schema/defaults vs saved XML only). These are meaningful but stated so tersely that an agent cannot confidently act on them.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, which is good, but the information density comes at the cost of clarity and it is not front-loaded — the critical scope (active profile, redaction) is buried after a vague verb. It is brief but not efficiently structured.

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 not be described. But four parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, usage is unexplained, and the sibling landscape is not addressed. For a tool in a crowded addon/settings namespace, this leaves an agent without enough to call it correctly.

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 0%. The words 'Search/page' loosely imply that query/start/limit exist, but none of the four parameters (query, start, limit, addon_id) is explained in the description, and the required addon_id is never mentioned. With zero schema coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 identifies the resource (settings in the active profile) and gestures at a retrieve/page operation, so an agent can infer it reads addon settings. However, the phrasing 'Search/page redacted settings' is cryptic, and it never clearly distinguishes itself from the closely-named sibling kodi_settings or from kodi_set_addon_setting. The 'Manager includes schema/defaults, otherwise saved XML only' clause muddies rather than sharpens the purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling is named despite several near-identical tools (kodi_settings, kodi_set_addon_setting, kodi_manager_inspect). The only hint is an implicit reference to a 'Manager' variant, which is not framed as a selection condition. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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