NVDA settings

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is what matters: it discloses that values reflect the currently active configuration profile rather than stored defaults, and that settings with secret-like names are hidden. That second point is a genuine output-completeness caveat an agent would otherwise misinterpret as missing data.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is read and under what conditions, with the parenthetical examples earning their place. The secret-hiding note is a separate sentence placed after the main statement, which is appropriate, though the phrasing is slightly wordy ("Settings whose names suggest secrets, such as an add-on's API key").

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description covers the live-configuration semantics and the hidden-secrets caveat, leaving only minor gaps such as whether values are per-profile scoped in 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the optional `section` parameter, including subsection syntax and the omit-to-list behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Read NVDA's settings") and adds scope ("as they apply now, including the active configuration profile"), which is clearly distinct from siblings like nvda_set_value or nvda_get_status. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool it might be confused with, keeping it just below the top mark.

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?

It gives one motivating scenario ("to explain why something is or is not announced") with concrete examples of the settings involved, which implies when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative tool for adjacent needs, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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