get_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly says the operation is a read, and it adds a meaningful safety disclosure: 'Password fields are never returned by Frappe.' This goes beyond a bare statement of function, though it does not cover error behavior or response shape.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, followed directly by the parameter value list, and a brief redaction note. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 only one required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it does, all accepted argument values, and the key return-behavior caveat about passwords. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'which' has no enum. The description compensates fully by listing every accepted value, including a clarification for 'dealer (dealer-portal WooCommerce)'. This is essential semantic information that the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Read an integration's Settings', which immediately distinguishes this getter from the sibling update_settings. It also enumerates the exact integration identifiers the tool supports, making the tool's scope 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?

The description makes clear this is a read operation and even lists all accepted 'which' values, giving an agent enough context to decide when to call it. It does not explicitly name update_settings as the alternative for modifying settings, but the read-versus-update contrast is strongly implied and there are no misleading exclusions.

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