state_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior such as what happens when the key is missing, whether state is per-session, or whether the value is serialized/typed. The description provides some transparency but leaves notable gaps.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Zero filler; every word contributes to meaning. The brevity is appropriate for a simple two-parameter getter.

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 read tool with two required parameters and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. The main missing context is failure behavior (missing key/namespace) and any serialization semantics, but given the tool's simplicity and the output schema, the description covers the essential scope adequately.

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 adds only the concept of namespace and key without explaining their semantics, formats, or relationship. The parameter names (namespace, key) are self-explanatory to a degree, and the required constraint is in the schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema property names imply, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a read operation on a namespaced value in shared local state, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('namespaced value'). It distinguishes itself from sibling state_put by implying the read/write split, and from orchestrate/skill_run/registry tools by virtue of focusing on local state.

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 this is for retrieving values from shared local state, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over other tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so the agent must infer context from the sibling list. It is adequate but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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