areas_get_area_states

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

No annotations provided; description indicates read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose what happens on error (e.g., invalid area_id) or any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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?

Description is extremely concise (9 words, 1 sentence) with no unnecessary information. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only), the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits mention of the output structure (even though an output schema exists) and does not clarify that 'states' implies a key-value mapping. Still, it's sufficient for basic understanding.

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 coverage is 0% and description provides zero additional meaning for the 'area_id' parameter beyond its name and type. No format, examples, or constraints are given.

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 is a single clear statement: 'Get current states of all entities in an area.' It uses specific verb and resource ('Get', 'current states'), and distinguishes from sibling 'areas_get_area_entities' which returns entity IDs, not states.

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 explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites. The description implies use when you need entity states in an area, but lacks comparison to similar tools or guidance on invalid area_id.

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