project-settings

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions reporting project preferences and project.toml data, which suggests a read operation, but it does not explain what 'preferences' or 'active project fields' entail, nor does it specify if the tool is read-only, whether output formatting is consistent, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 sentence and is concise, with no waste. It is front-loaded with the action 'Report' and resource 'project preferences, active project fields, and project.toml data', making it easy to scan. It could be more structured but is generally acceptable.

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?

The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information. It names several pieces of data but lacks details on the structure of 'project.toml data' or what 'preferences' might include. For a reporting tool, the description is insufficiently complete given the lack of schema and output schema context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and provides no parameter details. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it does mention the types of data returned (preferences, fields, toml data), which gives some context. Since there are no parameters, the description actually compensates reasonably by indicating what is reported.

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 states the tool reports project preferences, active project fields, and project.toml data. It identifies a specific resource (project settings) and the action (report), but it does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like project-report or project-files, making it somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project-report or properties-report. The description implies a read-only reporting purpose but fails to elaborate on appropriate contexts, exclusions, or relationships with similar tools.

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