Listing settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds the requirement of 'manage_advanced_settings' permission and the scope constraint that all settings are enterprise-wide. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise with three sentences. However, it is slightly redundant ('Listing settings. Lists all existing settings.'). It is front-loaded with purpose and keeps the permission requirement as a separate sentence, which is good structure.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, and required permission. While it doesn't mention return value format or pagination details, these are covered by the output schema and input parameters. The description is adequately complete for a list operation.

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% with all 9 parameters described in the input schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Lists all existing settings') with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_setting or create_setting by implying a list operation. The scope ('all settings are enterprise-wide') adds precision.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_setting for a single setting, create_setting for adding). The permission requirement is noted, but there are no exclusions or contrast with other list tools.

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