get_engine_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond them by clarifying that these are 'live' runtime knobs and bounding the scope to exactly two values. It doesn't discuss the distinction between getter vs persistent config semantics in depth, but for a read-only getter that is minor.

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?

Three tight sentences: the core capability first, the disambiguation second, and a compact return summary last. Every clause carries information and the most important routing detail (what it does not do) is front-loaded after the definition of scope.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by stating the exact return shape '{ max_fps, screen_percentage }'. Combined with the explicit sibling routing and the read-only annotation covering behavior, an agent has everything needed to select and 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description correctly does not fabricate argument semantics.

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 names a specific verb+resource and enumerates exactly which two values are read (max_fps, screen_percentage), even citing the underlying engine APIs. It explicitly states what it is NOT ('NOT a general settings dump'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the many other get_* settings tools.

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?

It names concrete alternatives and the conditions that select them: get_project_settings_value / get_engine_ini_value for project/plugin settings, get_scalability_levels for scalability buckets, and get_fps_info / frame_timing for frame timing. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit.

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