Retrieve a complete snapshot of all agents, threads, and messages visible to this agent. Use it to inspect the current radio-channel state before acting.
Full snapshot of agents, threads, and messages this agent can see.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden alone. 'Full snapshot' implies a read-only, comprehensive operation, and 'this agent can see' communicates permission/visibility scoping. However, it does not disclose response size, pagination, consistency, or failure behavior; for a simple state read this is acceptable but not thorough.
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 that front-loads the main idea ('full snapshot') and then specifies the contained entities and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.
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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description names the three entity types returned and the visibility boundary, which is sufficient for a straightforward state read. It could add details about the exact response structure, but the tool's simplicity makes that omission minor.
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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema is vacuously fully covered, and the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools 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 clearly identifies the resource set (agents, threads, messages) and the visibility scope ('this agent can see'), which separates it from sibling tools like list_agents and mutation-oriented actions. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'reads', but 'full snapshot' strongly implies retrieval.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use read_state instead of list_agents, send_message, or other siblings. The description does not state when this is the right call, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.