Get Project Preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: 'Units shown here only affect display; the connector always uses meters/degrees,' which prevents a real class of mistakes. It does not cover return format or error behavior, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is strong.

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 purpose, then the section inventory. The catalog of sections is long but every entry adds domain value. One parenthetical nesting ('dataSafety (temporary folder)') is slightly dense but readable.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned sections and their meaning, and by clarifying unit semantics. It leaves minor gaps (return shape, whether sections filter output) but is substantively complete for a single-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'sections' parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the section names (matching the enum) and notes the field names align with set_preferences, adding marginal context but no new syntax or defaults beyond the schema.

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 ('Reads') plus resource ('Project Preferences') and enumerates exactly what is returned (workingUnits, dimensions, calculationUnits, etc.), including a parenthetical clarifying each. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_project_info or get_view_settings.

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 line 'Field names are the ones set_preferences accepts' implicitly points to the write counterpart, hinting at the read/write relationship. However, there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is only implied.

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