get_input_default_settings

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the returned object is a base/default layer and that get_input_settings supplies overrides. However, it doesn't describe the return format, error behavior for unknown input kinds, or any required permissions, leaving gaps.

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?

One concise sentence with an em-dash that front-loads the core purpose and adds the overlay relationship. No wasted words.

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 parameter, but without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain the return structure more explicitly and note how to discover valid input_kind values. The overlay hint is valuable but leaves operational details unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only restates the 'input kind' concept without adding details about valid values or how to enumerate them. It doesn't mention get_input_kind_list, so the parameter remains underspecified beyond its name.

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 clearly states the tool returns a default settings object for an input kind, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_input_settings by explaining the overlay relationship. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous among siblings.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining that get_input_settings should be overlaid on the returned defaults to reconstruct effective settings. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the relationship to sibling tools implies the division of responsibility.

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