Get setting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not disclose expected response shape, error behavior, or whether a missing setting produces an error vs empty result. This is adequate but has 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 front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and lookup key, followed by a relevant documentation link. Every part earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter get operation, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, identifies the input parameter, and links to authoritative docs. The only notable omission is not describing the return value, but the operation is simple enough that an agent can likely infer success by the response.

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 schema has a required 'name' string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description at least clarifies that 'name' refers to a Longhorn setting name and gives a documentation link for valid names, but it does not provide concrete examples or enumerate valid setting names. This partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 specific action ('Get a single Longhorn setting by name') and the resource ('Longhorn setting'), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like setting_list (list all settings) and setting_update (modify a setting). The inclusion of the Longhorn docs link further anchors the resource.

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 clearly implies usage: call this when you need one specific setting and already know its name, versus setting_list for enumerating settings or setting_update for modifying. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it misses the highest bar, but for a simple get-by-name tool the context is clear.

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