ps_state_get

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 the tool retrieves state information, implying it's a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what happens if the agent doesn't exist. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 action and details. Every word earns its place by specifying what is retrieved and the key metrics included, with no wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 the tool's complexity (state retrieval with metrics), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how drift metrics and circuit breaker status are structured. For a tool with behavioral implications and undocumented output, more context is needed 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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'agentId' implicitly by referring to 'an agent', but doesn't explain what an agent is, its format, or where to find it. The description adds marginal meaning by linking the parameter to the resource, but doesn't fully clarify semantics beyond what's obvious from the schema.

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 ('current state of an agent'), specifying what information is retrieved ('drift metrics and circuit breaker status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ps_state_drift_history' (historical data) and 'ps_state_system' (system-wide state), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct regarding scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an active agent, or compare it to siblings like 'ps_state_system' for broader system state. Usage is implied by the action, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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