Get instance settings

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

The description adds the authorization class (board) and the exact API endpoint, providing some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose further traits such as the content of the settings or any side effects. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, so the added value is moderate.

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 concise, with the purpose stated in the first line. However, the second line adds technical details (HTTP method and auth class) that may be superfluous for an AI agent. It is not wasteful but could be more informative about the tool's context.

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?

The description is minimal and does not provide context about the scope of settings returned (e.g., all instance settings vs. subsets). Given the output schema exists and no parameters, the description could be considered adequate but lacks differentiation from similar siblings. It is not fully complete for an agent to understand the exact usage.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters. According to guidelines, baseline 4 for zero parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'instance settings'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pc_get_instance_settings_general or pc_get_instance_settings_experimental, which may cause confusion about which settings are returned.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks information on when to use this tool versus similar siblings like pc_get_instance_settings_general or pc_patch_instance_settings. It only includes technical details (HTTP method, auth class) that are not helpful for decision-making.

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