get_parser_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying no destructive effects, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires an active connection, has rate limits, returns real-time vs. cached data, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes clarifying examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It specifies what data is retrieved but not the format, scope (e.g., current machine only), or dependencies. For a read-only tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention connection requirements or return structure to be fully helpful.

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 has 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('active G-code parser state'), with specific examples of what that includes ('WCS, units, distance mode, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_machine_state or get_workflow_state by focusing on parser-specific data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., connection status), timing (e.g., during job execution), or contrast with siblings like get_machine_settings or get_loaded_gcode that might overlap. The description implies usage when parser state is needed, but offers no explicit context.

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