get_setting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the returned object lists every settable field and current valid value, that update_setting silently drops unrecognized fields, and that fields prefixed 'x_' hold credentials/secrets and are returned verbatim. This is substantial, non-obvious behavioral detail.

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 the core purpose, then parameter definitions, then practical discovery guidance. Although it includes a list of common keys, each element serves a real purpose given the absence of schema descriptions. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes scanning easy.

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 complete for a tool with three string parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It covers what the tool does, the exact meaning of every parameter, how to use the result, what to do before update_setting, a credential-handling caveat, and common valid keys. No critical operational information is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates thoroughly. It defines host as console name, ID, or composite ID in MAC:numericId format, site as site name or ID, and setting_key as a setting group identifier with concrete examples. It also provides a list of common keys and their notable enum fields, which is essential for correct parameter values.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a controller setting group by key.' It clearly differentiates from related tools by explaining that reading a group is how you discover what update_setting accepts, and names update_setting explicitly as the follow-up tool.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'There is no schema endpoint, so reading a group is how you discover what it accepts.' It instructs the agent to inspect the returned object before calling update_setting and warns about the controller silently dropping unrecognized fields and enum values. This is a clear when-to-use statement with an explicit alternative.

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