editor_get_editor_setting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read' without detailing the return value, potential errors (e.g., if the key doesn't exist), or whether the operation is strictly read-only. For a getter tool, there is no mention of what the agent should expect in the response, which is a significant gap.

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 with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly efficient.

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 fully documented parameter, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns. For a read operation, it would be valuable to mention the return value or that it returns the value associated with the key. The description is minimally adequate but leaves the return semantics undisclosed.

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 description for 'key' is 'Setting key', covering 100% of the parameter meaning. The description adds no extra context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No examples or clarification of the key format are given.

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 'Read an editor preference value' uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('editor preference'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like editor_get_project_setting and editor_set_editor_setting. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to read an editor preference value. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contexts, such as 'use this instead of editor_get_project_setting for editor-level settings.' The usage is self-evident but not explicitly stated.

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