Get Security Advanced Settings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's failure to restate that is not a fault. However, the description adds zero behavioral context of its own — nothing about what settings group is returned, whether values are defaults or live, or any auth/rate constraints. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a definition that contributes nothing is a 2.

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?

One short phrase, so there is no bloat or burying of key information. But brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — the single sentence does not earn its place by conveying anything the tool name already did not.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and a zero-parameter getter is trivially invocable, so the definition is not dangerously incomplete. Still, across a sibling set containing dozens of similarly named settings getters, no scoping statement is given to tell the agent what 'advanced security settings' covers.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule this scores 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level.

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 '获取安全中心高级设置' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, adding only the phrase '安全中心' (Security Center) as a location cue. It provides a verb+resource but no scope detail, and it does not distinguish this getter from siblings like get_priority_domain_settings or get_wifi_advanced_settings. This is a textbook tautological definition.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool, what state it reports on, or what alternatives exist among the many other 'get_*_settings' siblings. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.

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