project-setting-get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation with no destructive side effects. However, it does not describe error behavior (e.g., missing setting) or any rate limits, which could be valuable for an agent. Overall adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action in the first sentence and provides examples in the second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should at least hint at the return format. It does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., the value type). For a simple get, knowing the return structure is important for the agent to interpret results. This is a significant gap.

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 covers both parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond giving a few example values for 'setting'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter explanation.

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 'Reads a value from project.godot settings', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'project-setting-set' by focusing on reading. Examples like 'game name, window size, physics settings' further clarify its purpose.

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?

The description provides 'Use to check game name, window size, physics settings, etc.', offering concrete use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives beyond the implicit sibling difference.

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