project_get_setting

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the read-only nature. The description adds minimal context beyond 'single' and 'by its key', which clarifies the scope but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling or return format. Since annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 one concise, clear sentence with no wasted words. It effectively front-loads the core purpose and parameter information.

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 with a single parameter and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description is sufficient for a getter, though it does not mention potential error or missing-key behavior. Overall, it is adequately complete for the complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the schema already providing examples and meaning for the 'key' parameter. The description's 'by its key' adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('a single project setting'), and mentions the parameter ('by its key'). This distinguishes it from siblings like project_set_setting (write) and timeline_get_setting (different resource).

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 a project setting, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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