project_settings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add scope context — which it does by naming the exact file globs and the structured JSON return format. It says nothing about behavior when no project is loaded, when a settings file is missing, or how large the payload may be, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and immediately followed by the exact resources read. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what is read and in what form, which is the essential information. A brief note on preconditions (project loaded) or payload size would make it fully complete.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals that no filtering or selection input is expected.

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 ('Reads') and a precise resource: Content/*.json and Content/Settings/*.json assets, with concrete examples (Game, Graphics, Input, Physics). This is clearly distinct from build/log/scene siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with close neighbors like project_info or content_asset_info.

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 is only implied by the resource naming — an agent can infer 'use this to inspect project settings.' There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when another tool (e.g. project_info or content_asset_info) would be preferable, and no prerequisites or failure conditions mentioned.

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