get_modifier_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('get') but does not explicitly state there are no side effects, nor does it mention error behavior, output format, or any constraints. This is a minimal description that leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 short sentence with no redundancy, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It is concise in length but lacks essential structure—no summary of purpose, usage context, or parameter hints. It is not front-loaded with actionable information beyond a vague statement.

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?

For a getter tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the return value's structure and the required input format. It only mentions 'current values and settable property list' without specifying how these are organized. The description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional 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?

The schema provides only two string parameters with no descriptions, and the description adds nothing about their meaning or usage. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what 'object' and 'modifier' refer to (e.g., names, paths, or IDs). The agent must guess the parameter semantics.

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 fetches current values and the settable property list of a modifier. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('modifier settings'), which distinguishes it from mutation tools like apply_modifier or set_modifier. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings such as list_modifiers, leaving some differentiation implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The agent is not told that this is for inspecting a modifier's parameters before making changes, nor is there any mention of prerequisites like the modifier existing. The description lacks any exclusions or alternative tool references.

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