openmausbot_get_companion_settings

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., whether the returned JSON is structured a certain way, any caching, or auth needs). With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description does not contradict them, but it also doesn't enrich beyond the annotations. A 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately communicates the action and resource. No filler, no redundant phrasing. It is appropriately front-loaded and earns every word.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is sufficient for a simple read operation. It tells the agent what the tool does. It doesn't mention edge cases (e.g., missing file), but the output schema likely covers return structure. For a trivial getter, this is nearly complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since none exist). The description doesn't need to explain parameters. For 0-param tools, baseline 4 is prescribed, and the description doesn't detract from that. It's a simple read with no input semantics to clarify.

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 a specific action ('Read') and a well-defined resource ('OpenMausBot's companion settings JSON file'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'set_companion_setting' by opposing read vs. write operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the status or cua tools. It's specific but not fully differentiated from all siblings.

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 the tool should be used when one needs to read the companion settings, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or any prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it or when to use the setter instead. For a simple read tool, 'implied usage' is acceptable, which aligns with a score of 3.

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