design_get_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return contract including the direct-design null case for timeline_count. However it omits operational behavior: what happens if no document is active, whether it requires an open/linked document, and confirmation that it is non-mutating.

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 one-line purpose followed by a compact, well-structured return schema; every element listed is distinct and informative. Slightly dense formatting but no redundant text.

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 must define the return value, which it does thoroughly (design_type, units, document, root_component, counts, and the direct-design null case). The only gap is the precondition around needing an active design and error behavior.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is parameterless.

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 the resource (settings of the active design) and enumerates exactly which settings are returned, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. The read intent is implied by 'Returns' rather than an explicit verb, and it doesn't contrast itself with the design_set_units/design_set_type siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an active design/document must exist), and no pointer to design_set_units or design_set_type as the mutating counterparts. The agent must infer that this is the read-side twin of those setters.

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