get_physics_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gets' settings (read operation) and returns 'key-value' pairs, which clearly discloses the behavior and output format. This is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with no parameters, but it lacks details about the scope (e.g., project-wide settings) or the exact structure of the returned key-value pairs. Since there is no output schema, more context could help the agent understand the response format.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, indicating no gaps.

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 tool name and description clearly indicate it retrieves Physics/DynamicsManager or Physics2D settings in key-value format. This distinguishes it from many sibling get_* tools that focus on other settings (audio, player, etc.).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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