get_project_settings

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that: it documents the return shape, the raw-string treatment of complex Godot types (multi-line arrays/dicts, the input action map), and the __global__ bucket for keys outside any section. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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 the core action, then usage, then return contract. Every sentence carries information, though the return-format sentence is dense enough to require careful reading.

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 output schema, the description fully carries the return-value burden by specifying the two response shapes and the raw-string/__global__ edge cases. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by giving example section names and clarifying that omitting section returns all sections, and that out-of-section keys land under __global__. It slightly exceeds the schema's documentation of the same fields.

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 ('Parse project.godot into structured JSON') and scopes it to reading configuration settings without launching Godot. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_project_info and get_project_files.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it ('inspect configured display, input, rendering, etc. settings without launching Godot') and how to narrow with section. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of an explicit routing instruction.

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