Result get state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content by listing exactly which state values are read and by advising it be called before mutation, though it gives no format/units detail for those values.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields and the sequencing cue. No 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the state categories an agent needs. It could go further on value formats/units but is sufficient for 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document; per the baseline for 0-param tools this is a 4. The description correctly adds no parameter claims that could conflict.

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 ('Get the result viewer current state') and enumerates the exact state components returned (active dataset, time, colormap, legend range, playback, particles, view-lock, graph probe count). This clearly distinguishes it from the many result_set_* sibling setters.

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?

"Read this before setting values" gives an explicit sequencing guideline that points at the result_set_* family. It stops short of naming specific sibling alternatives or stating when-not to use it, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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