Settings: get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: secret-like values such as google_maps_key are redacted to show only as set, and the response format is JSON.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the field enumeration that earns its place by telling the agent what it will receive. The field list is long but informative rather than padded.

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 parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by listing the settings categories and noting redaction. A brief note on structure/nesting would make it fully complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of settings_set key names is a useful cross-tool hint but not a parameter concern.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show all project settings') and enumerates exactly which settings are included, so an agent distinguishes it immediately from sibling writers like settings_set or settings_cors_add.

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 by 'Show all project settings' and the pointer that its field names are the keys settings_set takes, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance or named alternative for reading subsets (e.g. settings_cors_list).

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