Get Setting

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read' aligns. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the key path format and providing an example, which helps the agent understand the expected input format. However, it does not disclose behavior on invalid keys or return structure, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The example is integrated seamlessly, providing clarity without extra verbiage. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure immediately communicates the tool's core function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, strong annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter format, and is consistent. Minor gaps include no mention of error handling or relationship to set_setting, but the output schema likely addresses return value documentation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'key' parameter format ('by key path') and giving a concrete example. This adds meaning beyond the bare type definition in the schema, though it could further specify constraints (e.g., case sensitivity) but is sufficient for a simple string parameter.

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 the action ('Read'), the resource ('a QGIS setting'), and the method ('by key path'), with an example. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_setting (write) and other getters (e.g., get_qgis_info). The verb+resource format is specific and 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?

The description implies usage for reading settings and provides a concrete key path example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_setting for writing, get_project_variables for project-specific settings). No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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