get_project_setting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with this by saying 'Read'. The description adds the detail about property path syntax but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format or error behavior. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not outstanding.

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 a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and the key parameter usage without wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and resource.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient information for basic usage: what the tool reads and how to pass the property path. It could be enhanced by describing the return value, but the read operation's intent is clear enough for this context.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'setting' is the property path and 'name' is an accepted alias, which meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it does not enumerate all possible values or explain why both fields exist beyond the alias statement.

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's purpose: 'Read a ProjectSettings value by its property path'. It specifies the resource (ProjectSettings) and the operation (read), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'set_project_setting' by using 'Read'.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool, including the property path format and that 'setting' is the primary parameter with 'name' as an accepted alias. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the read/write distinction from siblings is implicit in 'Read'.

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