read_setting

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it reads a value without discussing side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format. The output schema exists but is not referenced. Behavioral details are minimal.

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 very concise with just two sentences, front-loading the purpose. 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 the single parameter, the presence of an output schema, and sibling tools, the description is mostly complete. It tells the user how to find setting IDs, which is essential. Minor gap: does not describe the return value format, but output schema likely covers it.

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 description adds value beyond the input schema by explaining that setting_id is a 'Setting identifier' and pointing to get_settings_data for valid IDs. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 it reads a single configurable setting, using the verb 'read' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_settings_data (which lists all settings) and write_setting (which modifies).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on how to obtain valid setting IDs via get_settings_data, which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly mention scenarios where alternative tools might be preferred, but for a single read, it's sufficient.

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