Get Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds value by documenting the exact return envelope (success/error shapes) and clarifying the result is a dict of current server settings. For a read-only tool with no destructive behavior, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 compact: one clear summary sentence followed by a structured return-value block. The return block adds necessary detail without excessive prose. It is slightly longer than strictly needed because output schema exists, but it remains efficient.

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 read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and return format well. It does not describe what specific settings are contained in the result, but that is typically discoverable from the response itself. The main missing piece is explicit usage guidance relative to siblings.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The input schema is empty and the description correctly indicates no inputs are needed. Nothing additional is required.

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?

Description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Retrieve current server configuration.' This distinguishes it from the sibling apply_settings, which is a write operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any siblings.

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 implies use when the agent needs current server configuration, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like apply_settings or other inspection tools. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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