get_project_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the fact that no mutating counterpart exists on this server and that changes happen via local console/CLI, which prevents wasted sibling searches. It does not discuss failure behavior for an unregistered project_id, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the field enumeration, then two short clauses on mutability and the alternative. The long field list is dense but each item tells the agent what is retrievable; the only mild cost is that the enumeration dominates the sentence.

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?

With one required parameter, 100% schema coverage, an output schema that carries the return shape, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to establish scope and routing, which it does. The remaining gap is error/edge behavior for an invalid or unregistered project id.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage, including the pointer to list_projects for obtaining a valid id. The description adds no additional semantics about the id format or what happens when it is unknown, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a project's configuration') and then enumerates the exact fields returned: provider, model, effort, fallback per role, language, test_command, runtime, meeting_mode, evaluation_engine, workflow, review_gate, role names/avatars, read roots. This is far more precise than the name alone and separates it from siblings like get_context or preview_role_prompt.

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?

Explicitly rules out a class of use ('this server has no tool that changes settings, they are set with the local console or CLI'), which stops an agent hunting for a setter, and names preview_role_prompt as the alternative for inspecting what a role would actually be sent. It does not explicitly contrast with get_context or explain when settings-reading is warranted versus other context tools, so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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