get_project_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states read-only behavior and the two modes (single vs. dump), which is useful but does not explain edge cases like both parameters empty, result format, or error behavior.

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?

A single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Read', clearly communicating the action and two modes without wasted 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?

The tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core functionality but leaves gaps: no return value format, no mention of the exact meaning of 'section prefix', and no guidance on parameter combination. Adequate for a simple read tool but not complete.

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 must add meaning. It explains 'key' selects one setting and 'section' dumps all matching, giving some semantics. However, it does not clarify what happens when neither is provided, defaults, or parameter precedence.

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 the tool reads project settings, with two specific modes: by key or by section prefix. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_project_setting (write) and get_project_info (general info).

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 implies usage: use key for a single setting, section for a group. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, nor does it clarify precedence when both parameters are provided.

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