get_prototype_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read of current page state, but says nothing about the return shape (node ID? list of flows?), what happens on a page with no prototype data, or whether it requires the plugin bridge to be connected — notable gaps for a 0-param tool with no output schema.

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 no filler; the retrieved scope (start node and flow starting points) is stated 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 tool is simple (no params, no nesting), and the description covers what is fetched. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent still has no picture of the returned structure or failure modes, which the description could have sketched in a clause.

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 no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description correctly adds no parameter detail. Baseline 4 applies 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource pair ('the current page's prototype start node and Flows starting points'), so an agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not name its write-side siblings (set_prototype_start_node, set_flow_starting_points), so it is clear but not fully differentiated from the tool family.

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 guidance on when to use this read tool versus the set_prototype_start_node / set_flow_starting_points siblings, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. a page must be current, prototype mode required). Usage is only implied by the word 'Get'.

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