get_machine_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' settings, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires an active connection, has side effects, or details the return format (e.g., structured data vs. raw output). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all GRBL $$ machine settings with labels') with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 has 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource (GRBL settings with labels), but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., connection requirements) and output format. For a read operation in a complex server with many siblings, more completeness would be helpful.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying 'GRBL $$ machine settings with labels', which provides context on what is retrieved beyond the schema. This compensates adequately, though it doesn't fully explain output semantics, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all GRBL $$ machine settings with labels', which specifies what the tool retrieves. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_machine_state or get_parser_state by focusing on settings rather than status or state. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_alarm_info might also retrieve settings-related info), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a connection via connect_to_port), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like get_machine_state. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and siblings alone.

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