view_settings

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden, and 'View' does convey a read-only behavior with no mutation semantics. It adds no detail about output format, whether settings are local/global, or any side effects, but the verb itself is a meaningful behavioral signal for a settings inspection tool.

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 with no filler words. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for an agent scanning sibling definitions.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what it acts on and what action it performs. It omits the return format and any environmental context, but these are less critical for a simple settings view with no required arguments.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation gap. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter descriptions are needed; the description adds no parameter info but none is required.

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 states a clear verb ('View') and a specific resource ('current Proton Pass CLI settings'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like view_session_info and view_user_info by the resource being settings. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, relying on the distinct noun rather than naming them.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description only restates the tool's purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and resource. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals.

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