get_machine_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 the tool retrieves settings and allows filtering, but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds the optional filter detail in a single, clear sentence. Every word contributes to understanding without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic usage but incomplete. It does not cover return values, error handling, or behavioral context, which are needed for full agent understanding. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional parameter. The description adds minimal value by giving examples of keywords ('accel', 'steps', 'max_rate'), which slightly clarifies usage but does not provide deep semantic insights beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get all') and resource ('FluidNC/Grbl machine settings'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on settings retrieval rather than operations like jogging, running programs, or managing files. It precisely defines the tool's scope.

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 clear context for usage by mentioning the optional keyword filter, which helps guide when to use it (e.g., to narrow down settings). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as get_machine_status or get_system_info, leaving some ambiguity.

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