get_project_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a read operation returning JSON, explains that unset fields revert to column defaults, and specifies a 404 error for missing projects. This is valuable contextual information beyond the bare operation.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and lists return fields, the second explains default behavior and error case. There is no redundant information, and the key details are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It specifies the return format (JSON), lists the contained fields, explains defaulting behavior, and handles the error case. No additional information is necessary for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 already describes the single parameter 'projectId' as 'Project name or ID', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add further parameter-specific details, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage. The description implies the parameter identifies the project to fetch settings for.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving user-editable project settings, listing specific fields and distinguishing it from the sibling update_project_settings by focusing on the read aspect. It uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'project settings', with a clear scope of what is returned.

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 context is clear: this is the read-only counterpart to update_project_settings. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous and the tool is a natural getter for project settings. It provides no exclusion criteria but sets expectations about defaults and error handling.

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