Get input settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: returned values are merged with OBS defaults, differing fields are flagged, and secret fields are redacted — the redaction note in particular is information an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 compact sentence with no filler; the substantive payoff (defaults merged, diffs flagged, secrets redacted) is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 characterizes the return payload and its redaction behavior, which is the main thing an agent needs. It falls short only on how the input is identified and what happens on a missing/invalid name.

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?

There is one parameter (inputName) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. 'One input' only vaguely gestures at identification; it never says whether the value is a display name, internal name, or ID, nor whether unknown names error or return defaults.

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 states a specific resource and scope ('Settings of one input') and describes the return payload (OBS defaults merged in, differing fields, redacted secrets). It implicitly contrasts with the write sibling set_input_settings, but never names it or any other sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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: an agent can infer this is the read path for inspecting a single input's configuration, versus set_input_settings for mutation. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as list_inputs for enumeration.

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