ui-state

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral details. It mentions 'report' implying read-only, but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no other metadata.

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, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. It is efficiently structured and communicates the essential information.

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 that the tool takes no parameters and has no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool reports. It lists three specific aspects (availability, active window, capability flags), which provides sufficient context. Could potentially clarify 'availability' but overall it is complete for a simple report tool.

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 schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. Since there are zero parameters, the schema coverage is inherently high, and the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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 tool's function: reporting Blender UI availability, active window, and foreground-only capability flags. It uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies a distinct resource (UI state), which differentiates it from sibling tools that handle other Blender aspects.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context such as 'use when you need to check UI status' or any comparison to related tools.

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