project_settings_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states it reads data (non-destructive) but does not specify return format, auth requirements, or side effects. This is a minimum viable disclosure for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The key actions are front-loaded, and the reference is separate.

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 should ideally indicate the return format. It does not, relying on an external reference for setting names but not for structure. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, but for full completeness, return details would be helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that omitting setting reads all settings, clarifying the default behavior. However, it does not describe valid values or the parameter type beyond the schema structure, partially compensating but not fully.

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 clearly states it reads project settings, either a specific one or all. It distinguishes from sibling project_settings_set by explicitly using 'Read' and contrasting with the set operation implied by siblings.

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 indicates when to use: to read settings, one or all. It provides a reference for setting names. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools, the contrast with project_settings_set is implicit. No when-not guidance is given, but for a simple read tool, it's adequate.

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