get-settings

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true; the description adds useful behavioral context by naming the HTTP method/path ('GET /api/public/settings') and clarifying that only non-secret settings are returned. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two short, information-dense fragments with no filler. Endpoint, scope, and the non-secret caveat are all 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 public settings endpoint, the description covers what it returns (non-secret team settings), how to call it (GET path), and required scope. Return shape is not detailed, but the simplicity of the tool keeps this from being a major gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly needs no parameter details because there are none to document.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('non-secret team settings'), plus the exact endpoint and OAuth scope. This clearly identifies the tool and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-integrations or get-default-pipeline.

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 phrase 'non-secret team settings' plus 'Scope: settings:read' gives clear context on when this read-only settings endpoint is appropriate. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling settings tool exists, so this guidance is sufficient.

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