Get Kanban orchestration settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds 'writing redacted receipts' — a useful side-effect disclosure. But there's no detail on what gets redacted, what receipts are written, or where. With rich annotations providing most transparency, the description adds marginal value.

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 compact sentence with little waste, but the phrase 'Typed GET wrapper' is implementation detail that doesn't serve agent decision-making. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could omit jargon and keep the same informational value.

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?

There's an output schema present, so return values are documented structurally. With robust annotations and high schema coverage, the description need only cover intent and side-effects, which it does ('writing redacted receipts'). The receipt-writing disclosure addresses a non-obvious behavior. Could mention redaction policy but is largely sufficient for a read operation.

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% and the single 'resolve' parameter already has a clear description ('Whether the server should return resolved effective values'). The description reiterates 'resolved effective values' but adds no new semantics about the resolve parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 says 'reads kanban orchestration settings and resolved effective values' — a clear verb and resource. However, the term 'Typed GET wrapper' is implementation jargon that adds noise, and there's no explicit differentiation from sibling hermes_kanban_config_get or hermes_kanban_orchestration_update, though the read-only orchestration focus is reasonably clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus hermes_kanban_config_get, hermes_kanban_orchestration_update, or the many other kanban get/modify tools. The 'resolve' parameter behavior is implied but no context about when default resolution is or isn't desired. No exclusion or alternative tools mentioned.

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