Get Node.js build settings

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the 404-until-first-storage rule, the fact that API build requests only persist settings when none exist, and the role of stored settings in Git auto-deployment. These explain edge cases an agent would otherwise only discover at runtime.

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 moderately detailed but every sentence earns its place: it enumerates the returned fields, explains storage semantics, warns about the 404 behavior, and gives a concrete usage flow. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into nuances.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists what is returned, when it returns 404, how stored settings interact with API builds, and what action to take next. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, with domain and username both documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable because the schema already carries the full burden. 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 states a specific verb and resource: returns the build settings stored for the website, with an explicit list of fields. It clearly distinguishes this from nearby siblings like hosting_getNode_jsBuildSettingsFromArchiveV1 by emphasizing 'stored' settings and the website context. The mention of 404 until first build/settings update further pins down its exact scope.

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 gives an explicit use case: use after a failed build to check framework/entry-file detection, then fix with the Update Node.js build settings endpoint. It also clarifies the relationship between API-initiated builds and stored settings, which helps an agent decide when this read reflects reality. This is strong contextual guidance.

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