Get General Settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only states the bare action. It does not mention permission requirements, read-only guarantees, error behavior for nonexistent apps, or how lang/preview alter the request beyond what the schema already documents. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. It is appropriately compact, though the brevity partly reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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?

An output schema exists and parameter coverage is complete, so return shape and argument formats are already handled structurally. What is missing is routing guidance among siblings and behavioral disclosure — making this minimally viable for a simple get tool but short of complete.

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 100%: app, lang, and preview each carry inline descriptions, including enum options and a permission caveat for preview. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('general settings of a kintone app'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling getters like kintone-get-form-fields, kintone-get-form-layout, and kintone-get-process-management. It stops short of explicitly naming what it is not (e.g., 'for fields, use kintone-get-form-fields'), so it misses the 5 bar.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling retrieval tools, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The description merely restates the action; the agent must infer selection context purely from the resource name, with no help differentiating 'general settings' from 'app', 'form fields', 'process management', or 'app deploy status'.

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