gnosys_preference_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: which fields are returned, that missing keys yield a not-found message, and the kebab-case key convention. It does not disclose ordering or volume behavior when listing all preferences, which is the main remaining 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior, then the list-all mode, then the alternative tool. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (title, value, confidence, modified date) and the failure mode. Minor gap: no guidance on result size or ordering for the list-all path, which matters for an enumerating call.

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 schema already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by giving the kebab-case convention and a concrete example ({"key":"code-style"}), which is meaning the schema does not supply.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read a user preference by key), then covers the second operating mode (omit key to list all) and the return fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling that writes preferences by naming gnosys_preference_set explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit mode selection ("omit key to list all preferences") and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ("Use gnosys_preference_set instead to save or replace"). An agent can route between read and write without opening either schema.

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