resolve_get_project_settings

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by specifying that it returns JSON and names key fields, which is not evident from the name alone. However, it does not state whether a project must be loaded, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens if no project is open. For a simple getter, the read-only implication is strong, but the prerequisites remain unspoken.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is stated first, followed by the return format and representative content. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 zero parameters and an output schema available, the description is nearly complete. It communicates the primary purpose and return shape. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit note about requiring an open/current project, though that is largely implied by 'current project.' Overall, an agent has enough to call this 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter-related details, and there is nothing more to explain in the input schema. This is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states a clear, specific action ('Get all settings') on a clear resource ('the current project'). It also lists representative returned fields, and the name/description naturally distinguishes it from sibling set_project_setting. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 description makes the use case clear: retrieve all settings for the current project. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like set_project_setting, which would be the natural comparison. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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