sap_get_global_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The word 'Fetch' implies read, but explicit safety guarantees are missing.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, directly stating the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word 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?

Given no output schema, the description should hint at what the global registry contains or what the agent can expect as a return. It does not. The tool's complexity is low, but the description leaves the agent without understanding the result format or contents, making it incomplete.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. It is adequate as is, doing no harm. The baseline is 3, but given the absence of parameters, the score is elevated to 4 because there is nothing to add.

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 states the action ('Fetch'), the specific resource ('on-chain global registry'), and the implementation detail ('through SDK AgentModule.fetchGlobalRegistry'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from other SAP tools which deal with other aspects like escrows, subscriptions, or stakes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many SAP fetch tools (e.g., sap_fetch_attestation, sap_get_agent), it does not explain the unique context for calling global state, nor excludes cases where other tools are more appropriate.

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