get_suprsend_user_preferences

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

Description states 'Read' operation, but annotations include destructiveHint=true, contradicting the read-only nature. This contradiction forces a score of 1 per guidelines. The description adds context beyond annotations (returns tree, scoping), but the contradiction invalidates transparency.

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 front-loaded with core purpose, followed by structured usage sections and return value explanation. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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, the description fully explains return value (preference tree), optional scoping, and channel preferences. It covers usage scenarios and differentiates from 19 sibling tools. All necessary context is provided.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining behavior when category is omitted (full tree) and when channel_preferences is true (include overrides), going beyond schema descriptions.

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 'Read a user's category-level notification preferences and (optionally) per-channel overrides,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_suprsend_user (identity) and get_tenant_default_preference (tenant-level) in the 'When NOT to use' section.

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 provides explicit 'When to use' conditions (before update, user query, delivery check) and 'When NOT to use' with specific alternative tools (get_suprsend_user, get_tenant_default_preference, get_suprsend_object_preferences).

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