Get sidebar preferences for company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class, which provide some additional behavioral context. However, it does not disclose any other traits such as whether the output is filtered or paginated, or any side effects.

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 short and front-loaded, using only two sentences plus endpoint details. It avoids redundancy and is efficient. However, it could incorporate additional useful information without being verbose.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value is implicitly documented. However, the description lacks context about what 'sidebar preferences' entail, how 'me' scopes the results, and how this tool differs from the sibling pc_get_sidebar_preferences_me. For a tool with a single parameter and good annotations, this is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has a single parameter (companyId) with no description (0% coverage). The tool description also fails to describe this parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the tool name. It does not clarify that the endpoint returns preferences for the current user ('me') within that company.

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 states 'Get sidebar preferences for company' which clearly identifies the resource and action. The endpoint path provides additional context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'pc_get_sidebar_preferences_me' which might have a similar purpose without a company filter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The authorization class 'board_or_agent' is mentioned, but there is no discussion of prerequisites, scenarios, or why one would choose this over pc_get_sidebar_preferences_me or other similar tools.

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