list_company_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is formatted as Markdown and that encoded settings are decoded, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether pagination occurred, potential large payloads, read-only implications, or any other caveats, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise, two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description adequately covers the core purpose and return format for a simple list tool, especially given the rich schema. It states the output is Markdown with decoded values, which is enough given no output schema. However, it does not mention potential issues like large result sets or any limitations (e.g., inability to filter without optional params), but the schema offsets this. Overall, it is nearly complete for a list operation.

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%, with all six parameters having clear descriptions including enums and defaults. The description adds no extra per-parameter meaning, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The global mention of decoding does not clarify parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool lists company settings from the Transporeon settings API, using the specific verb 'list' and a clear resource. It also mentions the return format (Markdown with decoded values). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_company_setting or search_in_setting, though the name and 'all' hint at a broader 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_company_setting should be used for a single setting or search_in_setting for searching. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are given.

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