get_video_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the FPS fraction format (fpsNumerator/fpsDenominator), which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a safe read operation with no side effects, though the word 'Current' and the getter name strongly imply it.

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 a single sentence of about 20 words, front-loading the key information (current resolution and FPS) and adding a precise calculation note for the fractional FPS. 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?

For a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it returns and how to interpret the FPS fraction. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly naming the return fields (e.g., width, height), but the description is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 the schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 current canvas/output resolution and FPS. The word 'Current' implies a read operation, distinguishing it from the sibling set_video_settings. It identifies the resource (video settings) and the specific data returned (resolution and FPS).

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 implies usage for retrieving current video settings, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus set_video_settings or other alternatives. It relies on the tool name and conventional 'get_' prefix to convey its read-only purpose. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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