Get tool default settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: the two distinct response shapes, per-type error objects, the fact that settings mirror the type's create_* tool fields, and which optional blocks (classifications, categories, properties, notes) appear. It does not discuss permissions, model state requirements, or performance when many types are passed, which keeps it from a 5.

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: the purpose and the no-type/with-types distinction come first, and the usage tip closes the text. The content earns its place, but it is a single dense run-on sentence with nested braces and '...' placeholders, which is harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and a highly variable response, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by sketching both response shapes and the error variant. Coverage is adequate for correct invocation; only auth/environment prerequisites and any size limits (e.g., maxItems 50/500 effects) are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents the boolean flags and their defaults. The description still adds meaning by explaining that type/types drive two different return shapes and that gdlParameterNames should use names from get_gdl_parameters, tying the parameters to observable output rather than restating them.

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: returns the default settings of element tools, clarified as 'what the next element placed in Archicad (or created by a create_* tool without explicit values) gets'. It also differentiates its two modes (no type = toolbox listing, with types = full defaults) and names its counterpart set_tool_defaults, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow instruction: 'Use it before set_tool_defaults to see the current values and field names.' That is real when-to-use guidance and names the companion tool. There is no when-not guidance (e.g., use get_element_details instead for existing elements) and no exclusion against sibling read tools like get_gdl_parameters, so it stops short of a 5.

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