bake_get_settings

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

ReadOnlyHint and destructiveHint already cover the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by stating the settings are 'global' and enumerating folder, size, format, padding, and template, which clarifies scope and content beyond the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action word, and contains no filler. The bilingual repetition is purposeful and the parenthetical field list is 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only getter without an output schema, the description adequately identifies what will be returned. It does not specify value types or default behavior, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the readOnly annotation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter descriptions are unnecessary. The description still adds value by naming the domains covered by the returned settings, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('current global bake output settings'), and it enumerates the included fields. This clearly identifies the tool as a getter and distinguishes it from sibling setters like bake_set_output.

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 getter semantics imply the tool should be used when you need to read current bake output settings, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as bake_set_output. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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