get_input_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states that it returns settings and kind, but gives no details about error handling, side effects, permissions, or what happens if the input_name is invalid. This is a simple read operation, but the description adds little beyond the basic purpose.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one clear sentence plus an argument definition. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 the simplicity of a single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides an adequate high-level summary of the return value (settings and kind). However, it lacks any mention of response structure, potential errors, or behavioral constraints, leaving some gaps for the agent regarding what to expect.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter guidance is 'Name of the input', which merely restates the parameter name and adds no semantic value beyond the schema's own title. The description fails to clarify any constraints, formats, or default behaviors.

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 that it retrieves the current (non-default) settings of an input along with its kind. It uses a specific verb+resource construction and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_input_default_settings by explicitly saying 'non-default'.

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 implies usage for retrieving current settings as opposed to default settings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusionary guidance. No mention of prerequisites or suitable contexts is included.

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