tf_state

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that rm removes from state without destroying the actual resource, and mv should be used with care. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as potential state lock conflicts, the fact that these operations modify the state file permanently, or the need for proper permissions.

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, uses bullet points for operations, and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and relatively simple operations, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. However, it could be more complete by explaining how the workspace parameter works or what happens if address is omitted for list operations. The sibling tools list is large, but the description sufficiently distinguishes them.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly describing all parameters (workdir, operation, address, workspace, destination) with examples. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it manages Terraform state and lists four specific operations (list, show, mv, rm). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tf_apply, tf_destroy, etc., which perform different Terraform actions.

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 mentions 'use with care' for mv and notes rm is destructive, giving some guidance on caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like tf_resource (which manages resources) or tf_init, nor does it explain prerequisites like requiring an initialized workspace.

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