get_settings

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior context beyond that: target resolves to 1-based plate/0-based filament indices, and Studio-normalized settings only appear after a completed slice job, which materially affects interpretation of results.

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 short paragraphs with the core purpose front-loaded, then scope/target/key semantics in tight order. The dense target line earns its space as the only place that parameter's mapping is documented; nothing is padded.

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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: valid scopes, target mapping, key filtering, and the slice-job caveat. Return shape and revision semantics are the only remaining gaps, and neither blocks a correct call.

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 carry the parameters, and it largely does: it documents the scope values, explains that target selects plate_index/object_id/volume_id/min_z/max_z/filament_index, and describes keys as a response bound. Only revision is left unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

"Read settings and their origin" gives a clear verb+resource, and the enumerated scopes (project, plate, object, volume, height_range, filament) sharpen exactly what settings are covered. It never explicitly names the write-side sibling apply_settings, but "Read" vs a mutating tool is inferable, leaving it just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"Use keys to bound the response" is a genuine usage hint, and the scope list implies which selection to make. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over apply_settings, restore_revision, or inspect_project, and no prerequisites or when-not guidance beyond a passing note that normalized settings come from completed slice jobs.

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