Read a bot's settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, safe and open-world, so the bar is lower; the description goes beyond them by stating the required `bots:read` scope and the concrete rate limit (600/min, shared across the default group) and even explains why these reads are cheap. It omits error behavior for an unknown or unauthorized bot name, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 returned-field inventory is front-loaded and the scope/rate-limit facts follow compactly. The closing sentence ('These read stored records... which is why they are cheap') is explanatory flavor rather than operational guidance, so it is slightly over budget but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return contents, including the ambiguous loss-limit type, and covers auth scope and rate limits. It does not address failure modes (bot not found, insufficient scope), which is the remaining gap for a simple one-parameter read.

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 100% for the single `name` parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics and the description adds nothing about the argument. Baseline 3 applies; the note that loss limit can be a number or a {max_loss} object describes output shape rather than input 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 title plus the enumeration of exactly what comes back (script-declared fields, overrides, run mode, simulator settings, loss limit) makes the resource and read scope unambiguous, and it is clearly distinct from update_bot_config or get_bot_analytics. It stops short of naming a sibling for differentiation, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: you fetch a single bot's config when you need its stored settings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives like update_bot_config for writes or list_bots for enumeration, so it lands at minimum-viable.

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