query_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently says 'Read', so there is no contradiction. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotation by explaining the complete-scope versus dot-path behavior and by giving examples of the settings families covered (including editor.pipeline asset import defaults under per-project user preferences).

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 convey the full purpose, the complete list of scopes, and the path behavior with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first clause, making it easy for an agent to quickly classify this as a read-only settings query tool.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers scope semantics and path behavior, and the readOnlyHint covers safety. It does not detail the return shape or error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a settings query tool whose name and description already convey what it returns conceptually.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It does this well: it maps the scope enum values to meaningful setting categories and explains how the optional path parameter behaves ('Omit path for the complete scope or provide a dot path for one value'). Some additional detail about path dot-format edge cases would be useful, but the essentials are present.

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 the verb 'Read' and a specific resource ('any Editor settings scope'), then enumerates each supported scope explicitly (project, scene, per-project user preferences, global user preferences, session, private project settings). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like query_project_settings or query_scene_settings by signaling it is the general-purpose settings reader.

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 gives concrete operational guidance: omit path for the complete scope or provide a dot path for a single value, and it clarifies which scopes are covered. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the 'any ... scope' phrasing makes the intended usage clear enough.

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