Get settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: secrets in the returned settings are replaced with [redacted], which tells the agent why credentials will appear masked and prevents pointless retries or workarounds. It stops short of describing the shape of the settings object.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the resource identified first and the redaction caveat front-loaded before any call is made. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return, and it does so partially by flagging redaction. A little more on what the settings payload contains (e.g., SMTP, security, and performance sections) would make it fully complete for an agent deciding whether this call answers its question.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The two sentences do not need to spend words on arguments.

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 the resource ('Instance settings') directly, so paired with the name 'listmonk_settings_get' an agent can tell this is a zero-arg read of configuration. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbors like listmonk_status or listmonk_dashboard_counts, but the resource word 'settings' is specific enough to separate it from status/counts/logs tools.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be used versus listmonk_status, listmonk_dashboard_counts, or listmonk_logs, all of which plausibly return instance-level information. The agent must infer the choice from the resource name alone.

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