doc_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a summary/read-only operation, and it proactively discloses that direct designs return parameters_count and timeline_count as None with those listed in result.unavailable. This adds meaningful edge-case behavior without contradicting annotations.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a compact list of fields. The direct-design edge case is stated in one extra sentence without unnecessary 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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly enumerates all returned fields and covers a special-case behavior for direct designs via result.unavailable. For a zero-parameter introspection tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are straightforward and the baseline is 4. The description adds helpful context by enumerating the output fields even though no input parameters exist to document.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a summary of the active Fusion document and enumerates the exact state aspects returned: design_type, counts, units, dirty flag, components, parameters, timeline. This distinguishes it from sibling mutation and measurement tools.

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 implies usage for inspecting the active document state, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The direct-design caveat is useful context but not replacement for explicit usage guidance.

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