get_api_gateway_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and the target resource, without mentioning read-only behavior explicitly, access requirements, rate limits, or return characteristics beyond the tool's 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 compact and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is slightly under-specified but not verbose, which makes it easy to parse 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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can identify the resource and the required zone_id. However, the large sibling list and absence of annotations mean that a bit more context about what 'schema validation settings' includes or how this differs from sibling tools would improve completeness.

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 100%, with the only parameter zone_id already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as expected format or scope, so the 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('API Gateway schema validation settings'), which is more informative than the bare tool name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like get_schema_validation_settings or get_api_gateway_config.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_schema_validation_settings or get_api_gateway_config. The description gives no selection criteria, exclusions, or context about the appropriate scenario.

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