get_defaults

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the merging behavior, per-source attribution, and the precedence chain. It does not mention potential side effects (likely none for a read operation) or authentication requirements, but these are typical for a getter tool. No contradictions with annotations.

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 long, precisely worded, and front-laden with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value (main action + precedence details). No extraneous text.

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 moderate complexity (merging and precedence) and lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how defaults are resolved. It does not detail the output structure, but the agent can infer it returns a merged view. For a read-only tool, this is adequate.

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 zero parameters, so there is no need for additional parameter explanation. The baseline per instructions is 4. The description does not add parameter-level info, but none is required.

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 returns the merged view of generation defaults with per-source attribution, which matches the name 'get_defaults'. It is specific about the resource (generation defaults) and the action (return). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'set_defaults' or other read tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this over alternatives.

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 a clear precedence order for default resolution (config file, env vars, runtime overrides) and explains that per-call MCP tool args take precedence. This gives the agent good context on when this tool's output is relevant. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the precedence information indirectly guides usage.

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