get_snn_state

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it provides none. It does not say whether the tool is read-only, what state it returns, whether it has side effects, or what format the result takes. This is a complete lack of behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely short, but brevity comes at the cost of essential information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently structured, as it omits any verb, scope, or usage context. This aligns with the calibration example where under-specification is penalized.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for explaining the tool, but it fails to do so. It does not say what 'state' includes, how the result is presented, or how it relates to sibling state/status tools. For an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, the description is severely incomplete.

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 defines zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics requiring clarification. The description adds no parameter information, but with an empty schema this creates no gap. The zero-parameter baseline is met.

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 'SNN Engine State' is only a noun phrase that restates the tool name without an explicit verb or action. It identifies the resource but does not clearly state that the tool retrieves or returns this state, nor does it distinguish it from sibling status tools like wm_status or get_system_status.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description is a standalone phrase with no mention of conditions under which get_snn_state should be chosen over related sibling tools such as get_system_status or get_metrics. This is a lack of guidance rather than misleading guidance.

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