get_overlay_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads settings but doesn't clarify return shape, whether it errors on nodes without overlays, or access requirements. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap, though the read-only nature is implied by 'Read'.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler. The scope of returned settings is front-loaded, followed by the critical relationship to reactions, so the reader gets the essential framing immediately.

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?

The description effectively covers purpose and relationship to sibling tools, which is the highest-value context. However with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, an agent gets no information about return format or error behavior, leaving a nontrivial completeness gap.

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 has one required param (nodeId) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'a frame/component's ... settings', clarifying the expected node type, which adds value beyond the raw string param. No format detail for nodeId, hence not a 5.

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 (Read) and resource (overlay prototype settings) and enumerates the exact settings returned (position type, background, click-outside behavior). Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like set_overlay_settings and set_reactions by defining what it does and what it does NOT cover.

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?

Explanation that overlay settings control HOW an overlay appears while the opening interaction is a node reaction configured via set_reactions/set_transition_reaction gives an explicit boundary and names the alternative tools. No explicit when-to-avoid clause, but the distinction is clear enough to route calls correctly.

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