tool-setting_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. The word 'Read' implies non-mutating behavior, but it does not state what happens for invalid paths, the return format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a getter tool without annotations or an output schema.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value is, whether errors are raised for missing paths, or how the dot path maps to tool settings. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool reliably.

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 schema has one parameter 'path' with a title 'Dot path under bpy.context.tool_settings', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning about path format, constraints, or examples; it simply repeats the tool's purpose. The schema title provides some context, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'one ToolSettings path', indicating a singular retrieval operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tool-setting_set' (write) and 'tool-settings' (list) through the word 'one', though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for reading a single setting value, nor does it contrast with 'tool-setting_set' or 'tool-settings', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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