get_crawl_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets' settings without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool has an output schema (which covers return values) and low complexity, the description is somewhat complete but lacks critical context. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should explain more about the crawl settings retrieved and usage scenarios to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal meaning by implying 'site_url' identifies the site. However, it doesn't clarify the format or constraints of 'site_url' (e.g., must be a valid URL, domain-specific). With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of detail reduces it to 3.

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 'Get crawl settings for a site' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('crawl settings'), but it's vague about what crawl settings include (e.g., crawl frequency, depth, rules). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'update_crawl_settings' or 'get_crawl_stats', leaving ambiguity about 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for retrieving current configuration vs. historical data, or when to prefer 'get_crawl_stats' for performance metrics. The description lacks context for tool selection.

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