get_input_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds a critical behavioral caveat the annotations cannot convey: the silent failure mode where an Enhanced Input project yields near-empty results despite full binding. That is exactly the kind of context that prevents a wrong conclusion.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the caveat, then the routing alternatives, then the return fields. Each sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant with the annotations or title.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it covers scope, the legacy-only limitation, sibling routing, and the returned fields. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description instead documents the return shape (action_name, key, modifiers, axis_name, scale), which is useful given there is no output schema, though it goes beyond the parameter dimension.

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+resource ('Read the project's LEGACY input mappings from UInputSettings') and enumerates exactly what is covered (action mappings with modifiers, axis mappings with scale). It also names the sibling tools it is not (list_all_input_mappings, get_input_mapping_context), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the when-to-use case (legacy input projects) and the when-not case ('it does NOT see Enhanced Input mapping contexts ... can return almost nothing while the game is fully bound'), then names the correct alternatives for each scenario. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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