list_users_settings

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating a GET operation. It does not mention whether extended changes response shape, what default behavior occurs, or any auth/rate-limit considerations.

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 tightly structured and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and the parameter. It is concise without padding, though the parameter line could be more informative without hurting conciseness.

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 low-complexity read operation with a rich output schema and safety annotations, this is minimally viable: the endpoint and parameter are present, and the parameter is optional. However, the missing scope ('current user'), unclear extended values, and lack of sibling differentiation leave gaps an agent would have to resolve elsewhere.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented 'extended' parameter, but it only says 'Extended information to include in the response,' which is nearly tautological. It does not say what values are valid, how the parameter affects the response, or whether it expects a boolean-like flag, list of fields, or other format.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('Retrieve settings') and adds the explicit endpoint 'GET /users/settings', making the basic operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly say these are the current authenticated user's settings, and it does not contrast with sibling tools like list_users_settings_plex or update_users_settings, so it is not fully differentiated.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus sibling settings-related tools, no mention of prerequisites or authentication context, and no exclusions. The agent is given only the operation and endpoint, not the conditions that select this tool.

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