Unraid API settings

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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by revealing that the result is a deliberately filtered 'safe projection' and specifying which sensitive/complex fields are omitted, which helps the agent set expectations about the response.

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 front-loads the core action ('safe settings projection') and adds two clarifying exclusion clauses without wasted words. Every part contributes meaning.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly and understand what to expect. It could be slightly more explicit about which settings are included, but the exclusions plus the term 'settings projection' make the scope reasonably clear even without an output schema.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies, and no additional parameter documentation is needed.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Get a safe settings projection' — and goes further by listing what is deliberately excluded (unified values, schemas, OIDC client secrets). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling query tools, especially unraid_v4371_query_config and unraid_v4371_query_oidc_configuration.

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 should be used when a sanitized settings view is needed without sensitive or verbose fields, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when to use another tool. The exclusion list provides context but no direct routing guidance among the many sibling settings-related queries.

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