get_state

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context not in the annotations: the viewer-dependent redaction of GM facts versus disclosure of the authoritative ledger, which tells the agent what data visibility to expect.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste, and the core action ('Read branch state and revision') is front-loaded ahead of the view semantics.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description only gestures at return content ('state and revision') without indicating what state comprises or the revision format. For a read tool whose safety profile is already carried by annotations, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the payload.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the semantics of 'viewer' (player redacts GM facts, gm exposes the ledger), which is the one enum parameter, but says nothing about campaign_id or branch_id beyond their self-evident names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read branch state and revision'), which is distinct from siblings like read_history, get_knowledge, and get_recovery. However, it never names or contrasts with any sibling tool, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 explains the condition for choosing a view ('player view hides GM facts; gm view includes the authoritative ledger'), which is useful guidance for the viewer parameter. It gives no guidance on when to call get_state versus read_history, get_recovery, or read_canon.

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