raw_get_preference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'retrieve' claim by warning that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is important unexpected behavior for something named 'get.' The additional caution to 'inspect the command name first' attempts to flag hidden risk, though it remains vague.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'GetPreference:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name, and 'inspect the command name first' is cryptic, but the overall message is compact and each clause adds at least some context.

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 zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it states that it retrieves a preference and warns about potential side effects. However, it never explains which preference is retrieved, whether a return value is delivered directly, or what 'inspect the command name first' actually means for an agent trying to call the tool 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 schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there is little to add. The description reinforces this by explicitly calling it a 'no-argument' action, which is marginally helpful but largely redundant with the empty properties object.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve a preference value.' It is distinguishable from the sibling raw_set_preference by the word 'Retrieve,' and mentions it is a static no-argument action. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or fully clarify how the target preference is identified, and the 'inspect the command name first' warning introduces mild ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_set_preference. The phrase 'Static no-argument Audacity action' gives context that no arguments are required, but it does not state the circumstances under which an agent should choose this tool, nor does it explain what 'inspect the command name first' means operationally.

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