Get project settings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns entries with section, key, and value. No contradictions. It does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior or handling of missing sections, but given the annotation, the description is adequate.

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 a single, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and optional filter. No wasted words.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description hints at return structure (section/key/value entries), which is helpful. Parameters document pagination and format. It is complete for a simple list tool, though it could mention behavior when the section is missing or the format of the response.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, including limits, pagination, section filter, project_root, and response_format. The description mentions the section filter but adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists project.godot settings as section/key/value entries with optional filtering. The verb 'list' and resource 'project.godot settings' are specific. However, it could be more precise about how it differs from sibling tools like 'read_project_settings' or 'godot_set_setting'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it point to siblings like 'read_project_settings' or 'modify_project_settings' that might be relevant for reading or modifying settings.

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