get_overlay

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is low; the description earns credit by enumerating what the inspection returns (editable fields, types, allowed values, limits, looks, aspects, duration, free status). No auth, rate-limit, or error behavior is disclosed, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the inspection target precedes the 'before configuring' rationale. It is dense but every clause maps to actual returned content, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration usefully covers what an agent receives back. However, for a tool with two required, undocumented parameters, the description omits how to discover valid family/preset values, which is the main missing piece.

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% and the two required params (family, preset) carry only regex patterns with no meaning attached. The description hints that 'preset' is an overlay preset but never explains what 'family' is or the expected identifier format, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb 'Inspect' paired with a precise resource: an overlay preset's editable fields, types, allowed values, limits, looks, aspects, duration and free status. This clearly separates it from write siblings like configure_overlay and render_overlay, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'before configuring it' gives a clear sequencing cue pointing at configure_overlay, so the when-to-use is implied rather than stated. It does not say how to obtain valid family/preset identifiers (list_overlays) or when this is unnecessary, leaving an actionable gap.

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