get_research_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieve' but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the run_id is invalid, or any rate-limit or concurrency behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource and lists the returned data without any wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and for a simple one-parameter read tool the purpose is adequately conveyed. However, the absence of run_id semantics and usage guidance relative to sibling state tools leaves gaps that a fully complete definition would address.

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 single parameter run_id has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-evident in context, but the description adds no meaning about its expected format, source, or relationship to the research run.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (current execution state for a research run), and enumerates the returned fields. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_research_history or step_research, which an agent might confuse for related state operations.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It only implies usage through the word 'Retrieve', leaving the agent to infer when this state getter is appropriate versus siblings such as get_research_history.

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