Read a preset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: inheritance is resolved before return, values are Bambu-format strings, and behavior on an unknown name (error plus close-name suggestions) is disclosed. It stops short of describing output shape or size, but that is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, then sibling routing, then failure behavior. "Read-only" is mildly redundant with annotations but costs almost nothing and the rest is waste-free.

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 4-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, value format, resolution behavior and error handling. Only the concrete shape of the returned setting collection is left implicit, which keeps it just below a 5.

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% with enum and per-parameter descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of resolved inheritance loosely relates to only_overrides but does not explain key_filter or the override semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: "Read the settings of one preset" with the key qualifier that inheritance is resolved and values are Bambu strings. It explicitly distinguishes itself from compare_presets and get_3mf_settings, so an agent can route between the three without opening schemas.

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 an explicit positive case (inspect a single preset) and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: compare_presets for diffs only, get_3mf_settings for 3MF-stored settings. Prerequisite naming also points to list_presets for valid names.

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