cyd_settings_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a non-mutating intent through 'Read' and 'Observation, L1' and limits scope to the cyd machine. However, it does not explicitly say the operation is safe/read-only, nor does it cover output/error behavior or environmental prerequisites.

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 compact and lists its key content in a single readable sentence. The opening fragments 'Machine-specific (cyd)' and 'Observation, L1' add context but could be better integrated or reordered to lead with the action.

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 parameter-less getter with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it defines the device scope and enumerates the fields being read. It does not describe return shape, but that is less critical when the tool has no parameters and the read targets are named explicitly.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, so the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 uses the specific action 'Read' and a clear resource ('settings'), and it enumerates exact settings exposed: brightness, color theme, animation speed, and Bluetooth keyboard layout. This makes it unmistakably the getter counterpart to the sibling cyd_settings_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?

Usage guidance is primarily implied: the tool reads settings and is labeled an observation, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly direct the agent to prefer this tool over cyd_settings_set or other siblings, nor does it state exclusions or preconditions.

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