System Status

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

The description implies a read-only operation via 'Return', but there is no explicit statement about side effects, data freshness, or whether it reflects live or cached state. With no annotations available, the burden falls on the description, which does not address these aspects.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action verb and directly lists the returned items, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The description is sufficient for basic invocation but omits details about the structure or format of the returned data. Although the output schema is noted as present, it is not included here, so the description alone does not tell the agent what fields to expect or how to interpret 'state model' and 'chamber counts'.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain input semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion about arguments.

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 'Return' and identifies three distinct resources: deployment identity, state model, and current chamber counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like blackboard_get_state and colloquium_get_session, though 'state model' and 'chamber counts' are somewhat ambiguous without further context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list includes other getters, the description does not explicitly differentiate scenarios (e.g., 'use this for overall system status, not specific board state'). Users must infer its purpose from the name and resource list.

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