describe_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (current value, default, type, guidance per setting) and the authentication requirement (OIDC sign-in). While it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, the verb 'List' and the context of inspecting settings before updating imply a safe, non-mutating behavior. This is adequate transparency for a listing tool.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool lists and returns; the second provides usage timing and auth requirements. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no repetition of schema (which is empty).

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and what prerequisites exist. It is sufficiently complete for a simple listing tool with no parameters. The inclusion of return detail (value, default, type, guidance) compensates for the missing output schema.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value by naming the settings covered, which helps the agent understand the scope of the output, even though no input is needed. Since there are no parameters to document, the description's mention of the settings is a bonus.

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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'adjustable Relayer settings', enumerating categories (worker/concurrency tuning, backup schedule, cost center). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating 'Use before update_settings', making its role as a read-only precursor clear.

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 explicit guidance to use 'before update_settings', directly linking this tool to its sibling. It also notes the OIDC sign-in requirement. However, it does not mention scenarios where this tool should not be used or alternatives beyond update_settings, so it lacks exclusions but provides clear use context.

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