get_build_settings

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It indicates no destructive behavior but does not confirm if the operation is purely read-only or if any side effects occur. It lists example categories but lacks broader behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence with 12 words efficiently conveys the purpose. All elements are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. No redundancies.

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 no output schema, the description provides a useful list of example categories but does not indicate return format or structure. For a tool with many siblings, a bit more detail (e.g., 'returns a dictionary') would enhance completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter info since none exist.

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 specifies the tool gets all build configuration settings, listing examples (debug/release, scripting backend, features). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_build_configuration and validate_build_settings, which write or validate.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving settings but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_debug_settings. It provides no when-not or direct sibling references.

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