tool-settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'live ToolSettings RNA properties' but doesn't explain what 'live' means, whether it's read-only, or what the output format is. The description is too terse to convey behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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, which is concise and front-loaded. It states the core purpose without waste, but it's so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, the meaning of 'live', or how the parameters affect the report. The agent would need to infer too much.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'mode' and 'area_type' parameters at all, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them. The schema titles provide some hints (e.g., 'Optional mode, e.g. OBJECT or EDIT_MESH') but the description adds no value.

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 'Report active tool and live ToolSettings RNA properties' clearly states the tool reports active tool and live ToolSettings RNA properties, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'tool-active', 'tool-set', 'tool-setting_get', 'tool-setting_set', which are closely related and could be confused.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tool-active' or 'tool-setting_get'. It doesn't mention any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate for reporting tool settings.

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