get_agent_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful framing via 'current persisted plan,' implying the returned plan is stored state, but it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or ordering/pagination behavior. It is consistent with annotations and adds modest value beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and resource first, then compactly enumerates the relevant data categories, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool has only two fully documented parameters, explicit read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It names all major result components, and the output schema covers return-value details, so no critical context is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both team_id and agent_session_id are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond identifying the resource being fetched, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource—'Get an agent session transcript, runs, current persisted plan, plan steps, and run events'—and enumerates exactly what the tool returns. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_agents or list_agent_runs, which retrieve catalogs rather than a single session's detailed state.

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 makes the use case clear: call this when you need the full state of one agent session, including transcript, runs, plan, plan steps, and events. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose it over list-style siblings.

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