get_settings_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'gets' an object, implying a read operation, but does not confirm read-only behavior, mention error conditions, permissions, or side effects. The description is minimally transparent.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is front-loaded 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?

Despite low complexity (1 parameter, no nested types), the description does not explain return values or behavior. There is no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what is returned. It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage.

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 single parameter 'objectId' is mentioned in the description ('by objectId'), which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. However, the schema has no description and coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify the format or source of objectId, which it does not. It adds little value.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('Settings 2.0 object'), and the identifier ('objectId'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'list_settings_objects' and 'create_settings_object'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_settings_objects' or other get tools. No when-not-to-use or contextual hints are given.

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