get_view_state

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns null if the state is unset, and that with multiple browsers it returns the most recent active client's state. This is beyond what the schema (which has no parameters) would suggest, providing useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention read-only status or any side effects, but given the tool is a getter, that is implied.

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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences that convey the purpose, the key data points, and a critical edge case (null and multi-browser behavior). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds the nuance without any fluff.

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?

The tool has an output schema (though not provided here), so return values are likely specified. The description explains the view state components (mode, zoom, camera) and the null behavior. For a zero-parameter getter, this is sufficient. It doesn't mention what the output schema looks like, but that's outside its scope since an output schema exists.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns and its edge cases.

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 that the tool retrieves the view state (mode/zoom/camera) of the person screen, with a specific reference to [5-C] and [9-C]. This is a specific verb and resource, and the scope is clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_graph_summary or get_visible_nodes, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool: to retrieve the current view state, including mode, zoom, and camera. It also notes that if multiple browsers are attached, it returns the most recent active client's state, which is a key usage nuance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives.

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