Describe a setting

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it is 'Read-only and offline, so it works even when OrcaSlicer is not running.' This tells the agent about availability and side-effect profile. It could also mention error behavior, but the schema already covers unknown keys returning an error.

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 two short paragraphs: the first defines the tool's output and offline/read-only nature; the second gives usage context and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the returned fields. It also covers offline behavior, usage timing, and how to find keys. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'key' parameter is well-documented with examples and guidance to use search_settings or find_config_keys. The description itself does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 opens with 'Authoritative definition of one OrcaSlicer setting' and enumerates exactly what is returned (label, tooltip, type, unit, valid range, enum values, default). This clearly specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling search tools by noting that search_settings is for finding candidate keys.

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 explicitly states the intended use: 'Use it to learn a setting's exact type and allowed values before writing it with set_config or edit_preset.' It also routes to an alternative: 'To find candidate keys by keyword first, use search_settings.' This gives clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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