v2_controller_settings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context – and it does by disclosing that the output flags risky states such as controller NTP being off and plaintext management. That is security-relevant behavioral detail beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then lists the covered settings. The field list is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the call returns.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned configuration areas, effectively standing in for the missing return documentation. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify at the argument level; baseline 4 applies. The enumerated fields are return content, not inputs.

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 names a specific resource (controller-level configuration) and enumerates its contents, and the 'controller-level' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling v2_site_settings. The only gap is that the verb is implied rather than stated – it reads as a getter only because of the readOnly annotation, not the text.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative sibling is named, even though v2_site_settings, v2_services and v2_log_settings overlap in scope. The scope contrast with site-level settings is only implicit.

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