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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the scope and contents of the returned state, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, potential payload size, or any side effects, though the 'get' verb strongly implies read-only.

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, well-structured sentence with a clear leading concept ('Full current state') followed by a scannable list of components. There is no filler or repetition.

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 self-explanatory parameter and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns. However, the presence of describe_agent as a sibling creates ambiguity about which retrieval tool to use, and the description does not resolve that.

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 0%, and the description does not mention agent_id at all. The single parameter is fairly self-explanatory from its name and type, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of textual guidance, which the rubric requires at this coverage level.

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 identifies a retrieval action for an agent and enumerates the specific state components returned: genome, cognitive graph with weights/trust, and summary counts. This distinguishes it from list/create/delete tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly named describe_agent sibling.

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 phrase 'Full current state' implies this tool is for comprehensive state retrieval, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over describe_agent, export_state, or other siblings. No exclusion or alternative routing is provided.

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