Get Backend State

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the specific data returned (active backend, realtime status, loaded paths, dirty state), which is not visible in annotations or the empty input 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and concisely lists the key contents. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple parameterless getter with an output schema present. The description lists all the major return fields, and the output schema handles detailed structure. No additional context is needed for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on return values instead.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and clearly specifies the resource ('active backend, realtime status, loaded project/board paths, and dirty state'). This distinguishes it from siblings like is_dirty (only dirty state) and get_project_info, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage is implied: call this to get overall backend state. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like is_dirty or get_project_info, nor does it provide exclusions. The lack of explicit guidance places it at the 'implied usage' tier.

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