get_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully enumerates the state fields returned, but does not describe their shape or how 'combined history' is composed, which matters since there is no output 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the verb and then the payload. The field list is dense but every term 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 simple single-parameter read with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient because it enumerates the returned state components. The gap is the unexplained session parameter and the ambiguous 'combined history' field.

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 is one required parameter, browser_session_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what a session id scopes the read to. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') plus an enumerated set of returned fields (map, revision, grid, selection, editability, dirty, combined history), which makes it clearly a state-inspection tool. It is implicitly distinct from mutating siblings like place_actor or delete_actors, but no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is only implied: reading current state before/after edits. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_items, list_actors, or select_actors, and no stated prerequisites beyond the required session id.

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