cura_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It states it reads settings (implying non-destructive), but does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when invalid keys are provided. The description is minimal and lacks depth.

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 a single short sentence, front-loaded with the core action. However, it is too brief and sacrifices valuable details that could be added without significant length increase. It is not wasteful, but it is under-specified.

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 the tool has one required parameter with no description and no output schema details visible, the description should provide more context about the parameter and expected behavior. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks completeness for parameter usage and edge cases.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'keys'. The description does not explain what 'keys' represent, how to specify them (e.g., setting names, paths), or any constraints. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's structural definition.

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 the tool reads current settings in Cura for user verification, using a specific verb (lit) and resource (réglages). It distinguishes from siblings like cura_set (which writes) through the implication of read-only operation, but does not explicitly differentiate from other read tools such as cura_status or get_profile.

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 use for checking settings with the user, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cura_set for writing, cura_status for status). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate invocation.

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