state_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the state categories returned or represented, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, or any side effects or access constraints.

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 compact sentence that leads with the core subject and then provides a concise list of state components. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a parameterless tool the description is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema it would benefit from clarifying what the returned state looks like or how the listed categories are represented. The current description gives the topic areas but not enough detail to fully predict the tool's output.

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 there is no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately explains what the state contains, which is the relevant semantic context for a parameterless read call.

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 'Aktueller innerer Zustand' clearly identifies the resource as the current internal state and enumerates its content areas (Botenstoffe, Gefühlslagen, Bindung, Ermüdung). 'Aktueller' helps distinguish it from state_history, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from all siblings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as state_history, state_why, or state_event. The intended usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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