get_warehouse_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation by saying 'Return' and 'Reads ... from sys.databases', which conveys a read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications or side effects occur, nor does it mention permissions, error conditions, or other behavioral caveats an agent might need.

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 well-structured and compact. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists the exact settings read, states supported resource types, and closes with concise argument documentation. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, source table, supported resource types, and both parameters. Since an output schema is present, the absence of return-value detail is acceptable. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance about how this tool relates to sibling set_* tools, but this does not prevent correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. Both parameters are documented with meaningful semantics: workspace as 'Workspace name or GUID' and item as 'Warehouse or SQL Analytics Endpoint name or GUID.' This goes beyond the bare schema titles of 'Workspace' and 'Item' and fully clarifies what values are acceptable.

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 specific verb-resource combination: 'Return the current server-side database settings for a warehouse.' It further lists exactly which settings are read (result_set_caching, time_travel_retention_days, time_travel_retention_cutoff_date, data_lake_log_publishing) and from where, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_warehouse or get_audit_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?

The description states that both Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints are supported, which gives useful context about when the tool applies. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention that related set_* tools exist for modifying these settings. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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