get_view_state

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of safety disclosure. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, and the explicit list of return values (including 'if any' for detail clip) gives concrete behavioral expectations. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, which is a minor gap.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every word contributes to the description. It avoids redundancy with the input schema and annotations (which are absent).

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?

For a zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing the four return fields. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the related sibling getters, but the output schema likely covers return structure. Overall, it is adequate.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly omits parameter details and instead focuses on the output, which is appropriate for a parameterless getter.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'current view state' and enumerates the exact returned components (selected track, detail clip, draw mode, follow song state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_selected_track or set_draw_mode.

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 implies its use when a caller needs an overview of the current view state, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_selected_track, get_selected_device, or set_follow_song. No alternative tools are mentioned, and there is no guidance on when not to use it.

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