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

The description carries the full behavioral burden since no readOnly/destructive annotations are actually provided. It clearly discloses what is included (PUBLISHED and ENABLED areas only), what is excluded (unpublished drafts, disabled areas, internal _ids), and the response shape (always objects keyed by settings area, {} rather than an empty list). This is strong transparency beyond the name and schema.

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 long but information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists ('PUBLISHED and ENABLED only' appears in the first sentence and is restated as never-published drafts and disabled areas being left out), but each clause earns its place by explaining behavior, return shape, or usage guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what the response looks like, and it does: publishSettings and embedSettings are objects keyed by settings area, empty settings yield {} not [], and internal IDs are stripped. It also covers the practical reason to call it and points to project_get for lightweight metadata. The tool is simple enough that nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, and the parameter description 'The ID of the project whose settings should be returned' fully explains project_id. The tool description adds context about inherited defaults but does not add meaningful new semantics for the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the work.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the default Riddle settings every new Riddle of the project starts from.' It names the two returned areas (publishSettings, embedSettings) and explicitly distinguishes itself from project_get, which is the cheap call for name, image and permissions. This makes the tool's role clear and separates it from its 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 states exactly when to use the tool: 'Read it to know what a project forces onto its Riddles before creating or editing one there.' It also gives an exclusion: this is not a way to inspect unpublished or disabled defaults, and it names project_get as the alternative for name/image/permissions. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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