tidal_get_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only intent via 'get' and specifies scope (all channels) and content (patterns, start times), which separates it from mutating siblings. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, session requirements, or edge-case behavior, leaving the safety profile implicit.

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 front-loaded with verb and resource, with a dash clause that disambiguates what 'state' means (patterns + start times). No filler; every element earns its place.

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 zero-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: operation, scope, and return content. Minor gaps — return format and behavior when no channels are active — would require an output schema or one more clause, but they do not jeopardize correct invocation.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none to document; instead it clarifies what the tool returns, which is the relevant semantic content for an agent.

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?

Uses a specific verb 'get' with a specific resource 'current state of all channels' and specifies the return content (patterns and start times). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling query tools like tidal_get_history (past) and tidal_get_samples, and from the mutation tools (tidal_hush, tidal_silence, tidal_solo, tidal_unsolo, tidal_eval).

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 word 'current' implies this is for live-state queries, and the contrast with tidal_get_history (history vs. current) is evident but never made explicit. No alternatives are named and no exclusion criteria are given — the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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