v2_site_settings

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that with 'Flags risky values', telling the agent the response includes risk annotations rather than raw settings only. It doesn't say anything about size, pagination or credential sensitivity, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the scope declaration 'FULL site settings decoded'. The long parenthetical enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by delimiting the returned field surface.

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 the returned setting groups and notes risk flagging. However it omits the siteId parameter semantics entirely and gives no sense of response shape or volume, leaving a real gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 only 50%: showSecrets is documented in-schema, but siteId has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does nothing to compensate for the undocumented siteId — the agent must infer it from the tool name alone.

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 clear resource (site settings) with an explicit scope: 'FULL' and an enumerated list of the exact setting families returned (roaming, band steering, airtime fairness, mesh, etc.). The verb is only implied by 'decoded', and it does not differentiate itself from adjacent readers such as v2_controller_settings or v2_log_settings, which overlap on alerts/syslog territory.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. A sibling set full of v2_set_site_roaming / v2_set_site_feature / v2_set_site_* writers exists, and the description never confirms that this is the read-side counterpart or when an agent should pick it over those.

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