imgui_get_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return values comprehensively (values, checked states, text content, selected indices, interaction flags) which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a snapshot vs live state, whether calling it has side effects, or the size/format of the returned data.

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 compact — two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second lists the specific data returned. It's front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. Could potentially add more behavioral detail, but for its length it's well-structured.

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?

For a 0-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job explaining what's returned. However, with no output schema, it would benefit from describing the return format structure (e.g., a map of widget IDs to their states) to help the agent parse results. Also, the interaction flags (clicked, changed, etc.) are listed but not explained in terms of lifecycle (when they reset).

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 0 parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied — there's nothing to document beyond the schema, which already shows empty properties. The description correctly focuses on return values rather than inputs, which is the right emphasis for a state-getter with no 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 what the tool does: gets current state of all windows and widgets. It specifies the types of state returned (values, checked states, text content, selected indices, interaction flags), which is specific and useful. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from imgui_get_input_state or imgui_get_canvas_events, but the parameter-less nature and the detailed return types make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 this is a read-only state inspection tool but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like imgui_get_input_state or imgui_get_canvas_events. It doesn't mention when this is appropriate (e.g., after imgui_draw) or when a different tool would be better. There's a clear implied usage context for inspecting UI state, but no explicit guidance.

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