ipt_get_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool relates to a publication options form; it says nothing about side effects, return shape, required resource state, or permissions. The name suggests a read-only operation, but the description itself does not confirm that.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant phrases. The key parameter, page, is highlighted effectively, though the overall terseness borders on under-specification.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns and when each page value should be used. It does neither, and the large number of closely related sibling tools raises the bar for context that this description fails to meet.

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 description coverage is only 50%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented page parameter. It only restates the page enum values that are already present in the schema and does not explain what 'auto-publish' versus 'publication-settings' actually means or how shortname selects the resource.

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 identifies a specific resource ('publication options form') and lists the page parameter values, so it is not a tautology. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and never explicitly states that the tool retrieves settings, leaving the action to be inferred from the tool name. It partially distinguishes from siblings like ipt_get_publication_status but not clearly from other getter-style 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ipt_set_settings, ipt_get_publication_status, or ipt_get_metadata_form. The parenthetical page values hint at two modes but provide no selection criteria or exclusions.

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