get_output_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'get', but does not mention error conditions (e.g., unknown output name), permission requirements, or any side effects. The minimal wording adds little beyond the function name.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to process quickly.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states what the tool returns. However, it lacks details about the nature of the settings object, error handling, or how the output_name relates to outputs managed elsewhere. Given the low complexity, this is borderline sufficient but could be improved.

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 schema has one parameter (output_name) with no description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly indicates that output_name is the name of the output whose settings are returned, but it does not explain valid values, how to obtain names (e.g., via get_output_list), or any format requirements. Thus it provides minimal added value over the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a named output's settings object'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_output_settings (which writes) and get_output_status (which retrieves status rather than settings). It lacks a bit of context about what an 'output' refers to, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_output_settings or get_output_status. The description only states the action without explaining use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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