wafle_stores_settings_get

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

Beyond the annotations (read only, idempotent), the description discloses that it returns a subset (settings) and explicitly excludes items/orders. This gives the agent valuable behavioral context about the response scope and the tool's relationship to the base getter.

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?

A single sentence properly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by scope and use case. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema/annotation names.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (settings subtree) and what is not (items/orders). Annotations confirm safety, so no missing behavioral critical for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% for the single 'slug' parameter, including format and examples. The description adds no new parameter details, but the schema already fully documents the parameter. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 it retrieves only the settings subtree of a store, distinguishing it from the broader wafle_stores_get and other store tools. The verb 'returning' and specific resource 'settings' make the purpose unambiguous. It also hints at intended use case (review/diff workflows).

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 identifies this as an alias of wafle_stores_get and scopes it to settings only, implying use when full store data is not needed. It mentions convenience for review/diff workflows, giving clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with settings_update.

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