get-settings

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose if the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The current description only says it retrieves settings, implying idempotent read, but no explicit assurance. It lacks depth.

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 zero waste. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. For a simple tool it suffices, but could mention the structure of returned settings or typical use cases.

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?

No parameters exist, so the input schema is empty. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns. Schema coverage is high, but the description compensates by giving context. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 retrieves runtime settings of Node-RED, using specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get-flows or get-diagnostics, which could be addressed with a brief note on scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description only states what it does. For a simple read tool, it might be obvious, but explicit guidance is missing.

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