Get Lumia settings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: large lists return counts only in the default summary, and passing a section fetches a full list. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's purpose, explaining the default behavior, and instructing on sections. It is front-loaded with the main idea and contains no redundant information.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is quite thorough. It explains default vs. detailed lists and provides usage context. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes return behavior. Minor omission: could mention that section 'all' is available.

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 coverage is 100% (parameter 'section' fully described with enum and default). The description adds meaning by explaining that 'summary' returns 'states, counts, and studio scene/theme/animation names' and that other values return one full list. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Discover what this Lumia Stream user actually has set up.' It specifies the verb 'discover' and the resource 'settings', and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing that every user's setup differs and calling this before triggering actions by name.

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 clear guidance: 'Call this before triggering things by name, since every user's setup differs.' It implies when to use the tool (before triggering) and explains the default summary vs. specific sections. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct alternatives.

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