render_get_settings

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

注释已声明 readOnlyHint=true 和 destructiveHint=false，描述在此基础上增加了“快照”这一语义，明确这是一个非破坏性的只读操作。描述还披露了具体返回哪些渲染设置字段，比单纯依赖注释提供了更多行为信息。

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?

描述结构清晰，先给出中文说明，再提供英文对照，关键信息如“快照”和用途均放在前面。中英文内容基本重复，存在一定冗余，但整体篇幅仍然很短，没有无关信息。

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?

虽然没有输出模式，但描述已完整列举了该工具返回的主要渲染设置字段，足以让代理了解调用后会得到什么信息。对于零参数、只读快照类工具，这一描述已经覆盖了核心上下文；唯一不足是未说明字段的具体格式或单位，但影响较小。

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?

该工具没有参数，输入模式为空，因此参数语义不构成负担。描述没有引入与参数相关的歧义，也不需要额外解释参数含义，符合零参数工具的基线评分。

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?

描述明确了工具行为：返回渲染设置的快照，并具体列举了返回内容（分辨率、像素比、输出路径和格式、时间范围、起止帧、选帧字符串、是否保存文件）。这清楚地将其与兄弟工具如 render_get_engine（仅查询引擎）和 render_set_*（修改设置）区分开来。

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?

描述明确说明应在渲染/导出前使用此工具来确认配置，给出了清晰的使用场景。但它没有显式说明何时不应该使用此工具，或是应改用 render_set_* 系列工具来修改设置，因此缺少排除性指引。

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