get_project_setting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states this is a read operation, and it adds useful context about how idents can be located in exported .xef files. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or what happens when the ident is not found.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by valuable examples and context. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how the parameter is used, and where to find idents. Minor gaps include explicit return-value description and error behavior, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates well by defining 'ident' as a project setting identifier, providing concrete examples, and explaining where to find valid idents in exported .xef files. This meaningfully goes beyond the raw schema property name.

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 tool 'reads' a project setting value by its identifier, which is a specific verb and resource. This naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_project_settings, which writes rather than reads.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to read a project setting and have its ident. It also provides helpful context about where idents appear in exported .xef files, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly compare with alternatives.

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