get_crawl_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action ('get') and implies a read operation, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, response format, or any side effects. This is a bare minimum.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, making it efficient and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the overlap with 30+ sibling get_* tools and the lack of annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not differentiate from similar tools or provide any context about what 'crawl settings' encompasses, though an output schema exists to cover return values.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented site_url parameter. The phrase 'for a site' adds modest meaning, but it does not explain URL format, required structure, or any constraints, adding little beyond the parameter name itself.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'crawl settings' for a site, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_crawl_stats and get_crawl_issues. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of the highest tier.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other get_* siblings. There are no context cues, exclusions, or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the resource name.

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