get_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the list of what is returned, which the existing output schema already carries, and says nothing about auth requirements, caching, or whether the set is static or environment-dependent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource scope stated immediately and zero filler. Every clause (names, defaults, choices, limits) contributes distinct information about the return payload.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what is needed to select and invoke it correctly. The only missing piece is any hint about how the returned parameter metadata relates to the other Fusion tools that consume it, which would help an agent decide when to reach for it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, and it correctly implies the call needs no arguments.

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 names a specific verb ("Return") and enumerates the exact resource content: Fusion parameter names, defaults, choices and numeric limits. That makes the tool's output scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from the job/media/storage siblings, none of which touch parameter metadata. It stops short of 5 only because "Fusion parameter" is not defined or tied to any consumer tool in the set.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternatives or exclusions. The intent is strongly implied — call this to discover valid parameter names, defaults and limits before invoking other Fusion tools — but the agent must infer that discovery purpose from the content list rather than read it directly.

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