pddl_get_current_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it returns the state with predicates and fluents, but omits behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, cost, or performance implications. For a read operation, transparency is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence of 10 words. No wasted words; every part adds value. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it returns (current state with predicates and fluents). However, it does not specify the format of the state (e.g., PDDL string, JSON object) or any additional context like the scope of 'current' state. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds meaning by specifying what the state contains ('all true predicates and fluents'), which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and this is met.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current state') and adds detail about contents ('all true predicates and fluents'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pddl_get_available_actions or pddl_get_action_history.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer other tools like pddl_get_domain or pddl_get_problem.

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