get_state_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the verb 'Gets' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects. It does disclose the return format (FEN), which is additional behavioral context. While minimal, it is sufficient for this straightforward getter.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. It also includes an Args/Returns structure, which is clean and easy to parse with no redundant information.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no annotations, straightforward output), the description adequately covers the return format (FEN) and the purpose. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for additional detail.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema reflects this. The description confirms 'Args: None'. According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 'Gets' and identifies the resource as 'the board state', further specifying the FEN return format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like visualize_board_tool or evaluate_board_tool, which provide different views of the board.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool relative to alternatives. It implies that one should call it when the current board state is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use other tools. Given the simplicity of the getter, the usage is fairly obvious but not formally articulated.

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