get_app_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the endpoint is deprecated but still functional, and describes the return structure as a dict containing settings. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements, error behavior, or rate limits, and only indirectly implies read-only via '查詢'.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, deprecation note, API endpoint, and return structure. It's slightly verbose but each section adds value and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only settings tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, deprecation status, API endpoint, and return structure. It's complete enough 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds context about the return structure but doesn't discuss parameters, which is fine since there are none. No additional parameter semantics needed.

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 the tool retrieves store-level application settings (取得商店應用程式設定), specifying it queries feature switches and theme settings. The verb '查詢' and resource 'app settings' are unambiguous, and it stands apart from sibling analytics/order tools.

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?

It states the tool is suitable for confirming current feature enablement status and includes a deprecation warning recommending other settings endpoints for latest info. However, it doesn't name specific alternative endpoints, only generically referencing other settings endpoints.

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