Get Lucky settings

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description is not required to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that secret values are always redacted, which is not captured by the annotations or schema.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose clearly and the second adds the important redaction detail. Every word earns its place.

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 simple parameterless read-only settings getter with comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It covers the operation and the key output caveat (redacted secrets), and no output schema is needed to clarify an obvious return type.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter information needed. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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's function: 'Read Lucky base settings.' This specifies a verb, resource, and scope, and differentiates it from the sibling lucky_update_settings. The redaction note adds further precision about what the tool returns.

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 implies the tool is for reading settings, and the sibling list makes the read/write distinction apparent, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage guidance is adequate but left to inference.

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