Explain skgate settings

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real value beyond them: defaults are documented README values, no secret is ever included, result ordering follows the README table, unknown-name errors enumerate valid names, and it reads no environment variable at all. That is exactly the kind of edge-case disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Roughly four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then error behavior, then the read-only/offline caveat. No filler; each clause carries a distinct fact an agent needs.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, yet the description still describes the returned shape (settings array of name/default/description), the ordering, and the error path. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine semantics on top: the name is an exact match and case-insensitive, and omission returns the full set. The case-insensitivity point in particular is not derivable from the schema, which implies a strict-exact match.

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: 'Explain the environment variables that configure a skgate server.' The scope is narrow enough that an agent can separate it from siblings like 'about' and 'list_features' without opening the schema, and it explicitly names the optional target (a variable name).

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 states the selection condition clearly: pass an exact variable name to narrow scope, omit it to get everything, and an unknown name raises an error listing valid names. It also gives an implicit 'when not to use' by noting it cannot report values from a running server. It does not, however, name any sibling tool as the alternative for live server values.

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