Get Document State

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses read-only intent via 'one-shot reader' and lists the data it returns, which is strong for a state getter. It does not mention edge cases like an unopened document or failure behavior, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('one-shot reader') and then lists the relevant fields, followed by one short sentence linking to `set_document`. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and their domain. It does not specify exact types or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter state snapshot the essential information an agent needs to choose and invoke the tool is present.

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 accepts zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage with an empty properties object, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to explain parameter meanings that do not exist.

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 identifies a read operation on the active document and enumerates the exact fields returned: fps, frame ranges, current frame, document name/path, and camera/take/render handles. It also distinguishes itself from `set_document` as the writer counterpart, making its purpose unambiguous among the large sibling list.

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 clear usage context by positioning this as the reader paired with `set_document` for the writer side, implying use when you need a current document snapshot rather than a mutation. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it versus other getter-like siblings such as `get_params` or `describe`, so it stops short of a 5.

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