Get Mira settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns the 'resolved' configuration (not just raw input), includes a server-minted publicKey, and characterizes the value as a snapshot suitable for rollback, which tells the agent the output is comprehensive enough to restore from.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second provides the key usage nuance. Every phrase earns its place, and no structured data is unnecessarily repeated.

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?

With zero parameters, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, what categories of data are included, and why to call it (rollback snapshot). The mention of the publicKey is particularly valuable because it confirms an authentication-relevant field is present.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('the company's resolved Mira configuration'), then enumerates the exact contents: master switch, assistant profiles, chat widget with server-minted publicKey, and data-access toggles. This clearly distinguishes it from the narrower sibling get_mira_widget_embed and from mutation tools like update_mira_settings.

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 does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X', but it provides a clear usage context by stating the result is suitable as a rollback snapshot, which implies it should be called before changes to capture a restore point. Among siblings, this is the read-only retrieval counterpart to update_mira_settings and restore_mira_settings, which is inferable but not explicitly stated.

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