Get view settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot, namely the two different result shapes and the fields returned in each, plus the meaning of storedInView. It does not mention error behavior when a GUID/name is not found, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Effectively two parallel clauses, one per mode, front-loading the omitted-vs-present distinction before the field lists. The parenthetical enumerations are dense but each item is informative; there is no filler or restated purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does so thoroughly for both modes, including which stored settings are reported and how storedInView disambiguates them. With zero required parameters and rich return coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema already states 'Omit for the current window', so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining that the semantics of omission vs. presence change the entire returned dataset (live window settings vs. stored saved-view settings), which is meaningful beyond the schema wording.

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+resource (get view settings) and immediately splits into the two distinct behaviors: current active window when 'view' is omitted, saved view settings when it is supplied. It enumerates concrete returned fields (drawingScale, layerCombination, penSet, structureDisplay, renovationFilter), so an agent can distinguish it from set_view_settings 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?

Clearly gives the condition that selects each mode (omit 'view' for the active window, pass 'view' for a View Map item), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g. set_view_settings, list_views) or exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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