cura_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: the omit-keys listing mode and the 200-key ceiling. It does not disclose how unknown keys are handled or the response shape, so this is solid but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core read action is front-loaded and the two operating modes plus the cap follow immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the listing-versus-fetching behavior adequately. But with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained 'extruder' parameter and the global-vs-extruder scoping rule leave a real gap an agent must guess at.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain the 'keys' parameter well (omit to enumerate, provide up to 200 for values) but says nothing about 'extruder' — not what index 0 means, nor what happens when it is omitted versus supplied. Partial compensation only.

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 (Read) and resource (effective global or extruder settings), which distinguishes it from siblings like cura_inspect, cura_status, and printer_status. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 two usage modes (omit keys to list, supply keys to fetch values) and gives a 200-key cap, which is genuinely useful guidance. However it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as cura_inspect or printer_status, nor any prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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