Get Git auto-deployment settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false nine. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the meaning of `is_enabled` false (keeps link but ignores pushes) and the all-null case when no auto-deployment is configured. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of edge cases without contradicting the read-only nature.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the main purpose, adds the key behavioral detail via `is_enabled`, and ends with a pointer to the update tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only GET with two string parameters, the description adequately covers what is returned, the null edge case, and the relationship to the update sibling. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains return semantics. Nothing missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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 both parameters (username, domain) are already documented with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Git auto-deployment settings of the website'), and lists the exact fields returned (repository, branch, directory, push trigger). It also names the sibling update tool, distinguishing this read operation from the write operation.

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 makes clear this is the read tool by saying 'Save settings with `Update Git auto-deployment settings`', which helps an agent choose between reading and saving. It also explains the null state for websites without auto-deployment. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use the delete sibling, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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