get judge settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: null means house default/auto, Cache-Control is no-store, runtime precedence order, and the screening edge case where a default that would judge its own sibling model is swapped. This is exactly the kind of disclosure agents need.

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 dense but tightly organized: purpose first, then endpoint and scope, then return shape, then Cache-Control, then precedence and edge-case notes. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 GET with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It documents the exact JSON shape, the semantics of null, the API-key scope, HTTP caching behavior, runtime precedence, and even the screening exception. An agent can understand the tool's behavior without needing additional context.

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 and the input schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description goes further by explaining the meaning of the two return values, which compensates for the absence of an output schema, though this is more output semantics than parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Read' and names the exact resources: the workspace's default judge model and the platform's house default. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling set_judge_settings by being read-only, and it never merely restates the tool name.

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 makes the read-only usage context clear and the contrast with set_judge_settings is implicit through the GET method and 'read' API-key scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or list exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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