get_cni_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive read operation, which is the most important behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose output format, required permissions, error behavior, or whether any account-specific defaulting occurs, leaving meaningful gaps.

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, concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place, but it is arguably too sparse because it omits context that would help an agent distinguish CNI settings from related CNI or settings tools.

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 one required parameter documented in the schema, an agent can at least form a valid call. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and the description does not explain what the returned CNI settings look like or what CNI means. For a simple one-parameter getter this is minimally complete, but it still leaves ambiguity.

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 only parameter, account_id, already carries a description in the schema. The phrase 'for an account' maps directly to account_id but adds no extra semantics such as ID format, validation rules, or whether the account must be the caller's own account.

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 operation ('Get'), the resource ('CNI settings'), and the scope ('for an account'). It is distinguishable from unrelated setting getters like get_ssl_settings or get_zone_settings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_cni_interconnect or clarify what CNI refers to.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cni_interconnect, list_cni_slots, or other settings getters. It merely restates the basic action without giving selection context, exclusions, or relationships.

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