get_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the free-text filtering behavior and the 'per_object' marker indicating which keys are settable per object/part. It does not describe output shape or how the nozzle dimension affects 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return content and followed by filter and workflow guidance. No filler, though the quoted filter-word list is somewhat list-heavy for the space it occupies.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does: valid setting keys, current values, and the per_object distinction. Missing only the nozzle parameter's role and any note on how printer/process resolution works when process is null.

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 carries the burden. It explains the query filter with concrete example words and implies printer+process scoping, but the 'nozzle' parameter is never mentioned and 'process' is only implied. Three of four parameters get some meaning; one is entirely undocumented.

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 precisely what the tool returns: every valid setting key with its current value scoped to printer+process. That is specific enough to separate it from sibling listing tools like list_presets and list_printers, though it never names an alternative 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?

It gives concrete usage context: filter results with words like 'support', 'wall', 'infill', and it points forward to the workflow ('Use the exact keys in slice_model settings'), which is real guidance on why an agent would call this. It lacks any when-not or alternative-tool exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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