find_setting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: results show each match's current value, scoped to a bed of the open job, defaulting to the first bed. However it omits what happens when no job is open, whether matching is substring/case-insensitive/regex, and whether results are capped, so the read-only and failure behavior must be inferred.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and examples in the first sentence, followed by the value-reporting behavior and a compact Args block. No redundant or filler text; every sentence conveys usable 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers scope, default bed, and both inputs. It stops short of covering the no-open-job case and result-set limits, which matter for a search tool whose scope depends on ambient job state.

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 supply meaning, and it documents both parameters: query as "words to look for" and bed as "which bed's current values to show" including the default of the first bed. The query semantics remain slightly under-specified (matching rules, AND/OR behavior of multiple words).

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 and resource ("Search PrusaSlicer setting names and descriptions") plus concrete example queries that make the resource domain unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from the mutation-oriented siblings such as set_object_settings or set_bed, since this one only reads and reports values.

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: an agent can infer you'd call this when you want to look up a setting, but the description never says when to prefer it over list_profiles or set_object_settings, nor does it state prerequisites. No explicit when-not guidance is given.

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