preferences-get

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that the response includes case_source and the fallback behavior, but does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate for a read-only get operation.

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 sentences that are concise and front-loaded. The description directly states the purpose and explains parameter usage without unnecessary words.

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 simple getter with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the parameter behavior and response aspects (case_source). It could mention the response structure more, but is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds additional meaning by explaining how machine_id and path work together for worktree case lookup and the resulting case_source field in the response.

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 it gets the current user's preferences, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling preference tools by explaining the optional parameter behavior for resolving current_case_id.

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?

Explicitly explains when to pass path and machine_id to auto-resolve the worktree case, and the fallback to global current_case_id. Provides context but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool vs alternatives.

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