fgui_get_publish_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It uses '读取' (read), implying a non-destructive operation, which is a mild safety signal. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or error handling, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds the key usage timing. Every word contributes value.

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 is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown). The description explains what is read and when to call it, but it does not clarify the parameter's role or behavioral details like return structure or prerequisites. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, package_name. The description mentions '包级覆盖设置' (package-level override settings), which hints that the parameter is related to a package, but it does not explicitly explain how package_name affects the output or that it is optional. This is insufficient to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 states it reads project publish directory, format, atlas, code generation, and package-level override settings. The verb '读取' (read) and the specific resource set make the purpose clear. It indirectly distinguishes from the sibling fgui_publish by noting this should be called before publishing, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 explicitly says '发布前应先调用' (should be called before publishing), providing a clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the pre-publish guidance is a useful and specific usage directive.

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