list_settings_main

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path, which is useful context but not substantive behavioral disclosure. No additional behavioral traits are mentioned, so with annotations covering the main concerns, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Extremely concise: only two lines, with the core purpose front-loaded. There is no wasted text, and the structure is optimal for a tool with no parameters and a clear action.

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?

Given no parameters, an output schema that documents the return structure, and annotations that cover the safety profile, the description is complete. An agent can call this tool correctly without additional context. Nothing is missing.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). According to the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to document.

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 'Get main settings' uses a clear verb and resource, and the name distinguishes it from other settings tools like list_settings_public or list_settings_plex. However, it does not explicitly state what 'main settings' contains or how it differs from siblings, relying on the name to carry that weight.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling settings tools (e.g., list_settings_about, list_settings_plex). The agent is left to infer based on the name alone, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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