get_project_settings

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Parses project.godot' implies a read operation but doesn't disclose side effects, error behavior, permission requirements, or return format. The agent cannot infer whether this returns a structured object, logs output, or just validates the file.

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 extremely concise—one short phrase—and it is front-loaded with the verb. However, it under-specifies the tool: it lacks structure, organization, or any elaboration. While it wastes no words, it also fails to convey necessary information, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool has a parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, it is woefully incomplete. An agent cannot determine the meaning of 'prefix', what the tool returns, or how it should be invoked correctly. For a tool with even one parameter, this level of omission is unacceptable.

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 input schema has one 'prefix' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description never mentions 'prefix' or provides any hint about its purpose. The agent has no way to know how to use this parameter, making the tool effectively incomplete.

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 a specific verb ('Parses') and resource ('project.godot'), making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from siblings like run_tests or export_project, none of which reference project.godot. However, it doesn't clarify what the parse result is or how it's returned, leaving some ambiguity about the actual output.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without any context about expected use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate. With 20 sibling tools, this omission is significant.

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