Get Doc Settings

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

Annotations already mark it read-only. The description adds value beyond that by listing exactly which settings are returned, mentioning the rowVersion dependency, and stating the project-context precondition. No contradictions or hidden side effects are apparent.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the purpose, enumerate the returned settings, and add the relevant update_doc_settings dependency. Every sentence contributes meaningfully with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the call returns and why it is needed. The only minor gap is not explaining how 'project context' is established, but that appears to be a platform-level convention.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with documentationId already documented as 'The public Id (Guid) of the documentation'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a documentation's settings', and enumerates distinctive content (version numbering scheme, publishing approval, code languages, schema name display). This clearly distinguishes it from doc tree/page/snippet tools and even ties it to update_doc_settings.

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?

Provides useful usage context: it requires project context and explicitly notes that it returns the rowVersion consumed by update_doc_settings. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X', but the enumerated settings make its role and timing clear.

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