get_project_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the returned state (ordered steps, per-step params/masks/opacity/blend, undo/redo availability), which the annotations do not. It says nothing about size/cost of the payload or how include_history changes the result.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key content (what state fields come back) front-loaded. Field enumeration is dense but earns its place; only the semicolon-chained style slightly reduces readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to convey return contents, and it does so reasonably for the step list and undo/redo flags. However it omits the parameters entirely, and does not say whether include_history expands the payload or how large the state can be – gaps an agent must guess at before calling.

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 0% and neither parameter is mentioned in the description. The 'undo/redo availability' phrase hints at history but does not explain what include_history toggles or that project_id is the required target. For a 0%-coverage schema the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

States precisely what the tool returns: the complete editing state, with the constituent fields enumerated (ordered steps with ids, params, masks, opacity, blend, plus undo/redo availability). This differentiates it from project_history and list_operations, which cover history/log views rather than current state. It lacks an explicit verb, but the name 'get_project_state' and the field list make the resource unambiguous.

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 on when to call this versus siblings such as project_history, list_operations, or plan_edit. An agent must infer from the field list alone that this is the snapshot call. No preconditions, no exclusions.

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