blender_msfs_get_export_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only query with no side effects, which is helpful, but the description does not specify the exact return format, whether results depend on scene state, or what kinds of 'recommendations' are included.

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 with no filler or redundant phrases. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-value information, but it only says 'settings and recommendations' without elaborating on format, contents, or how the results are structured. For a parameterless getter this is acceptable but still somewhat incomplete for an agent that needs to interpret the output.

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 description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description's mention of 'settings and recommendations' provides reasonable context for what the agent will receive.

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('available flight simulator export settings and recommendations'), so it is not a tautology. It is reasonably clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling MSFS tools like blender_msfs_export_model or blender_msfs_get_material_presets.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs available MSFS export settings or recommendations before exporting. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related MSFS tools, and no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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