describe_setting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it explains the output contents, the meaning of allowed_values, and the list-of-strings implication of per_extruder. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'Read this before setting' strongly implies a harmless query 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states what the tool returns, the second gives actionable usage guidance, and the third clarifies two important edge-case semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter describe tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, the output fields, when to use it, and two non-obvious behaviors (allowed_values keys and per_extruder list format). A small gap remains because the key parameter itself is not explicitly defined, but overall this is a well-rounded description.

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 input schema has only 'key' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description never directly explains that 'key' is the setting identifier or how it should be specified, leaving the agent to infer this from the tool name. It adds useful context about setting values but does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource ('a setting') and the specific information returned: label, tooltip, units, default, allowed values or numeric range. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_settings by describing a single setting's full definition rather than searching for settings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Read this before setting anything whose legal values you are unsure of.' This gives a clear trigger for invocation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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