get_settings

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description's 'Return' aligns with these. The description adds useful scoping about which settings are included, but does not disclose extra behaviors such as response variability or authorization requirements. With rich annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

One dense, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the three distinct setting categories. Every phrase adds value, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation information. It is concise without omitting important scope.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key return categories and lets the agent decide whether it needs this data. The openWorldHint annotation partially accounts for an unspecified response shape, and the sibling list provides enough context to differentiate it. It could enumerate some concrete field names, but that is not essential for selection and invocation.

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 single optional user_id parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Limit settings to one sipgate user ID'), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail, but none is needed given full schema coverage. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and names a clear resource: user reachability settings, device availability/DND state, and voicemail settings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_dnd (which mutates DND) and get_routing (which returns routing config). The scope is concrete and agent-actionable.

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 gives clear context on what settings are returned, so an agent can infer when to call this tool versus alternatives like set_dnd or list_devices. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, but the specificity of the returned categories provides sufficient guidance for read-only settings lookups.

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