npm_get_setting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Get" implies a read, but nothing is said about behavior when the setting_id does not exist, required permissions, or the shape of the return value. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the lookup key come first. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the bar is low, but the description still omits error behavior for missing IDs and any hint of the returned setting shape. Adequate but with clear residual gaps.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (including an example value "default-site"). The description's "by ID" adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get a specific setting") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like npm_list_settings or npm_update_setting, which an agent could easily confuse for the same resource.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of npm_list_settings (retrieve all) or npm_update_setting. The single-item-by-ID framing implicitly suggests it is for known IDs, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated explicitly.

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