settings_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the 'nullable' field semantics for settings like 'vision_model' and 'reranker_model,' adding behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but these are likely unnecessary for a read operation.

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 clear and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses an 'Args' section for parameter details. While it includes useful information, the explanation of nullable behavior could be slightly more concise, but overall it is well-structured.

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 an output schema exists (not shown), the description appropriately focuses on input and behavioral nuances. It covers nullable semantics, provides examples, and references a sibling tool for key discovery. For a single-parameter read tool, this is comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'key' parameter with examples ('top_k', 'chunk_size', 'chat_model') and directing users to 'settings_list' for key discovery. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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 explicitly states 'Get the current value and metadata for a single lilbee setting,' clearly identifying the action and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'settings_list' by referencing it for key discovery, aiding in differentiation.

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 advises using 'settings_list' to discover keys, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also explains the 'nullable' field behavior for specific settings, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention any prerequisites.

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