list_lead_settings

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 covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the read is scoped to the current team, and the values returned are not universally valid but team-specific, which directly affects downstream writes.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states exactly what is read and the second gives actionable usage guidance. It is well front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the return format is already documented. The description provides the missing context an agent needs: when to call the tool, why team-specific values matter, and which sibling tools depend on its results. Nothing important is left unstated.

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, so the schema already fully defines inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed; it instead clarifies that the tool requires no inputs and simply reads current settings. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('the current team's lead configuration'), and enumerates exactly what is returned: follow-up status codes with label, colour, and display order, the colour tag library, and assignable members. This clearly separates it from sibling write tools like update_lead, set_lead_tags, and assign_leads.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool before update_lead, set_lead_tags, and assign_leads, and explains why: status codes, tag codes, and member ids are team-specific and the write tools reject unknown values. This gives both a positive trigger and a concrete exclusion boundary.

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