content_setting_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without describing side effects, read-only nature (though 'get' implies it), default behavior, or what happens if the setting is unset. It also does not clarify what 'effective' means (e.g., inherited vs. explicit settings).

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and object, and there is no extraneous text. It is appropriately sized, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the return format or expected behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the setting value, a boolean, an object), nor any edge cases. For a simple get tool, this is minimal but incomplete for an agent to fully understand the call's 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain 'kind' (which enum values represent) or 'primaryUrl' (what URL format is expected, e.g., scheme required). The schema provides the enum and URI format, but the description adds no additional semantic context, leaving the agent to guess at the purpose of each parameter.

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 and resource: 'Get an effective per-site Chrome content setting.' It identifies the action and the target object, and the 'per-site' qualifier adds scope. It is distinct from the sibling content_setting_set, though it doesn't name the alternative. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 alternatives such as content_setting_set or other chrome tools. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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