get_current_stateReturn the narrow current Resolver-derived state for an ECZ-ID (state, checked_at, Resolver link). No risk/safety/compliance inference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ecz_id | Yes | ECZ-ID identifier, e.g. ECZ-GB-RBS1NW |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return scope (state, checked_at, Resolver link) and what it deliberately does not do (inference). However, it lacks mention of potential error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behaviors on invalid ECZ-IDs, which would be expected for a complete picture.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, specifies the exact data returned, and adds a caveat about what is excluded. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description names the three returned fields and the scope boundary, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. While it does not specify error behavior or output format beyond field names, the absence of an output schema means the description does not need to explain return values in depth.
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%, so the schema already fully documents the 'ecz_id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current Resolver-derived state for an ECZ-ID') and enumerates the exact fields returned (state, checked_at, Resolver link). Explicitly scopes out risk/safety/compliance inference, which distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_identity or explain_status that likely perform inference.
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: it returns a 'narrow' state and explicitly notes 'No risk/safety/compliance inference', suggesting that tools like explain_status should be used when inference is needed. However, it does not name alternative tools or describe specific scenarios where this tool is the right choice versus a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are conceptually distinct, but get_current_state, resolve_identity, and explain_status all orbit the same status/render responsibility and could be misselected without careful reading. The descriptions reduce overlap, but the boundaries are still subtle.
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_request_to_resolve, explain_status, find_product, get_current_state, get_install_instructions, get_resolver_link, resolve_identity. There is no mixing of conventions or vague ambiguous verbs.
Seven tools is a well-scoped set for an identity-trust utility server. Each tool covers a distinct operation area without bloat, and the count fits comfortably within the expected range.
The domain is covered well: resolution, state retrieval, status explanation, resolver links, request creation, product guidance, and install instructions. Minor gaps exist around request lifecycle management (e.g., checking or cancelling a request), but core workflows are not dead-ended.