typora_get_preferences

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 does add value by explicitly saying 'Read' and naming the data source (profile.data) and specific fields, but it does not mention side effects (though read is implied), failure behavior, or whether the output is a full raw config snapshot versus a filtered subset.

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?

A single, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently lists the notable preference categories. Every phrase contributes information; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no parameterslint, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what to expect. It could theoretically mention the return format (e.g., JSON) or note that it returns all preferences, but the listed examples give sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly.

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)Skip{...}, so the input schema fully covers invocation needs. The description adds semantic context about what the returned configuration contains, which is meaningfully informative even though no parameters exist.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('Typora's configuration and user preferences (profile.data)'), and enumerates the exact preference groups it covers. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like typora_list_themes or typora_get_theme_css, which target narrower theme-specific data.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as typora_status, typora_list_themes, or typora_get_preferences. The description implies a general config-reading purpose but offers no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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