hydra_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior beyond that: visible=false means the browser throttles frames and screenshots may be stale; mic='prompt' means audio-reactive code reads zeros until permission is granted. It also clarifies role semantics ('exactly one primary answers; mirrors just follow'). This is exactly the kind of transparency that prevents misinterpretation.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a compact summary of returned fields, then two field-specific warnings that earn their length because they materially affect how an agent should act. No sentence is filler, and the most decision-relevant caveats are highlighted.

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, an existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly. It explains non-schema behavioral edge cases (tab throttling, mic prompt) and gives concrete course-of-action guidance, so no critical context is missing.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than inventing parameter-related details.

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 opens with a specific, actionable purpose: 'Which Hydra tabs are connected and whether they can be trusted right now.' It then enumerates exactly what is returned (role, adapter, fps, resolution, sources, blocks, warnings), making the tool's resource and scope unmistakable. It also clearly differentiates itself from mutation-oriented siblings by focusing on read-only state inspection.

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 gives clear context for when this tool matters — checking current trustworthiness, background-tab visibility, and mic permission. It also provides explicit behavioral guidance: 'Ask for it to be brought to the front rather than working blind' and 'Never assume the click happened.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for safe selection.

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