get_storage_groups_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and parameter usage. It's front-loaded with the main functionality and avoids unnecessary details, though the parameter explanation could be slightly more integrated into the flow.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks behavioral context like error cases or dependencies. Without annotations, it should ideally mention more about the operation's safety or constraints to fully guide an agent.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'group_id' by explaining it's a unique identifier and referencing another endpoint to look it up. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., string pattern).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('settings of an app group'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_storage_groups' or 'update_storage_group_settings', which would require mentioning it's specifically for retrieving settings rather than listing groups or modifying them.

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 minimal guidance by referencing another tool ('Get App Storage Groups') for obtaining group IDs, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_storage_groups' (for listing groups) or 'update_storage_group_settings' (for modifying settings). No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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