list_settings_public

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint, which is not behavioral context. It does not disclose auth requirements, response behavior, or what 'public settings' actually entails, though the annotations reduce the burden.

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 extremely concise: one sentence of purpose and one line for the endpoint. Every word earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded. There is no redundant exposition.

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 simple zero-parameter GET with an output schema and strong annotations, the low description length is partially acceptable. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'public settings' includes and when to use this tool over sibling settings tools. The output schema covers return structure, but the description is too sparse to fully disambiguate the tool's role.

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 input schema is empty with 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description does not need to add anything for parameters. The endpoint path reinforces that this is a no-input operation.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get public settings.' It names the HTTP endpoint, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_settings_main or list_settings_about beyond the word 'public', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of authentication context, what 'public' means relative to other settings tools, or any exclusions. The word 'public' only weakly implies a use case, but the description does not help an agent decide between this and the many sibling settings tools.

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