get_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. 'Get' strongly implies a non-mutating read operation, and the listed setting categories suggest what information is available, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect absence, authorization needs, pagination, or call cost.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence gives useful concrete examples of the settings scope without repeating schema or annotation 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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose and the content scope, and the availability of an output schema removes the need to detail return values. Nothing important is missing for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the zero-parameter baseline applies. The description has no parameter semantics to clarify because the tool requires no arguments; the listed content scope is sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the global Horizon configuration settings'. It lists concrete included settings (client session timeouts, pre-launch settings, display protocol defaults, HTML Access) that distinguish it from sibling getters such as get_global_policies or get_environment_properties, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 makes clear this is a global settings read operation and implicitly separates it from update_settings, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention when an agent should prefer get_global_policies, get_environment_properties, or update_settings instead.

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