get_statetree_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes a read operation (get info) but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or authorization needs. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about being read-only and idempotent.

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 with two sentences plus an Args list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured clearly. Minor waste: 'Args:' prefix is unnecessary but not harmful.

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 the complexity of the StateTree system and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the key aspects: what information is returned and how to identify the state. It could mention error handling or return behavior, but is complete enough for typical use.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by providing meaningful details for each parameter: asset_path is a content path, state is an index path with examples, state_name is case-insensitive, state_guid is a GUID string. This adds significant context beyond the schema's types and requiredness.

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 purpose: 'Get detailed info for a single state: properties, tasks, conditions, transitions.' It also specifies three identification methods (index path, name, GUID), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_statetree_states that list all states.

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 explains how to identify the state (by index path, name, or GUID), which implicitly guides the agent on when to use this tool (when a specific state is needed). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for listing states.

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