list_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return format (list of setting objects grouped by key) and parameter formats, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or error behavior. 'List' implies read-only, yet this is not explicitly stated, leaving some ambiguity.

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 and well-structured: the first sentence states the core function, the second provides parameter details and return structure. No redundant words or filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a list tool without output schema, the description gives the return shape (object list grouped by key) and parameter formats, which covers most informational needs. Missing details like pagination or permission requirements are minor, but a fully complete description could mention whether any filtering or ordering is supported. Overall, the essential 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: host is described as console name, ID, or composite ID (with format), and site as name or ID. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare string type declarations.

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 ('List') and resource ('controller setting groups') with a clear scope ('for a site'), and differentiates from sibling tools like get_setting or update_setting by indicating it returns all groups rather than a single setting. The mention of grouping by keys (mgmt, super_smtp, guest_access) further clarifies what is being listed.

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 implies usage when you need to retrieve all setting groups for a site, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_setting. There are no exclusions or explicit comparison with siblings, so the guidance is mostly implicit.

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