query_project_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read'. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that it 'Returns the full settings object' and listing the covered settings domains, which clarifies what an agent can expect beyond the annotation. No contradictions found.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, briefly states the return content, and ends with a clearly marked negative usage instruction with alternatives. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it differs from related tools. The annotations cover the safety profile, and no output schema is needed because the return type is described as 'the full settings object'. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter documentation is not needed. The schema description coverage is effectively 100%, and the description clarifies the return value rather than parameters, which is appropriate here.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('current project-wide settings'), then enumerates the settings categories included. It also distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling 'modify_project_settings' and 'query_scene_settings' by naming them in the usage note.

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 not to use the tool and names the exact alternatives: use modify_project_settings for changes and query_scene_settings for per-scene settings. This is direct, actionable routing guidance that leaves little to inference.

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