postiz_get_provider_settings_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the return structure (default-settings template, __type, markdown reference) and implies read-only behavior via 'look up'. It adds value but could explicitly state that no side effects occur.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first states purpose and source; the second summarizes returns and usage. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage hint, and return structure. It lacks detail on the format of the settings block, but the reference to a 'template' and markdown is sufficient for an AI to understand the tool's function.

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 schema already describes both parameters (provider string, includeMarkdown boolean). The description adds context by specifying the allowed provider values ('slug or __type') and the default behavior of includeMarkdown (true). This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 ('look up') and clearly identifies the resource ('settings block schema for a Postiz provider'). It also states the bundled source and outlines the return values, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicitly advises calling this before postiz_create_post when provider-specific fields are needed. This provides clear usage context, though it does not specify when not to use it or mention any alternatives.

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