rn_add_state

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only reveals 'Pro feature', hinting at a paid entitlement/API key requirement, but does not disclose what files are generated, whether existing code is modified, or what happens without Pro access.

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, front-loaded sentence that economically states the action, platform, and an important constraint. There is no fluff or redundancy, though it could have replaced 'Pro feature' with richer usage context while staying concise.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out generated artifacts, effects on the target directory, and any requirements for the api_key. It is a minimal-viable hint of intent, not enough for confident invocation in an unfamiliar context.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50%: 'directory' has a description but 'api_key' does not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning. The 'Pro feature' hint indirectly suggests why api_key exists, but an agent is left guessing about the expected value or how it is used.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('state management for React Native'), making it clear what the tool does. The 'Pro feature' qualifier adds context, but it does not differentiate from generic state management tools or specify the concrete state solution (e.g., Redux, Zustand), which prevents a 5.

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 given for when to use this tool versus the many similar siblings. It does not mention prerequisites like an existing React Native project, whether a Pro API key is mandatory, or which workflow this belongs to.

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