titan_get_settings_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It adds significant context by revealing the format is Lua-specific and that official C++ documentation is misleading, implying this tool gives the correct working format. However, it does not explicitly state the return format or side effects, so it stops short of fully disclosing all behavioral traits.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds a critical usage note. It uses all-caps emphasis intentionally for the important instruction without unnecessary verbosity. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides a reasonably complete picture: what the format is, when to use it, and a caveat about official docs. It would be slightly more complete if it described how the format is presented (e.g., as a string, file, or list), but for a reference tool, the current description suffices.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters but adds value by describing what the returned format includes. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 providing the Lua rotation settings format, explicitly listing its contents (bool/int/float/enum, groups, apply). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the format rather than actual rotation data, and crucially contrasts it with the official C++ API documentation, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs to read this before adding settings ('ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНО прочитай перед добавлением настроек'), providing a clear when-to-use. It also offers an alternative exclusion by stating that the official documentation is not applicable to Lua, thereby directing users away from it. This is strong usage guidance.

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