infomaniak_get_drive_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds the nuance of a 'snapshot' (implying a point-in-time view rather than a live query) and enumerates the specific settings areas covered. This contextual information goes beyond the annotations, providing useful behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource clearly. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema), the description covers the purpose and scope sufficiently. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit usage tie-ins to related drive management tools, but the overall context is adequate.

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 already describes drive_id and points to infomaniak_list_drives for discovery, giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter itself, so it reads at the baseline expected when the schema covers the parameter fully.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'kDrive policy settings snapshot' with clear subcategories (AI, share links, office, preferences). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_manage_drive_settings (write) and infomaniak_get_drive_full (broader resource).

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 implies usage when one needs to inspect current policy settings, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like infomaniak_get_drive_full or how it relates to infomaniak_manage_drive_settings. The schema hints at discovering drive_id via infomaniak_list_drives, but that is a parameter prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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