tcai_workspace_state

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

With no annotations, the description has full burden to disclose behavior. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it's non-destructive, lacks side effects, or require any permissions. The brief statement omits critical behavioral traits like idempotency or rate limits.

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 concise at one sentence, listing key state components. However, it is somewhat dense and could benefit from clearer structuring (e.g., 'Returns: ...') to improve scannability. Still, it earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple state retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides some context (the metrics returned) but is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, data types, or whether it returns a single value or an object, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, no parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter details because none exist, so the score remains 4.

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 'Global Neuronal Workspace state' and lists specific metrics (ignition, focus, qualia, sync R, unity metrics, access history), indicating it retrieves state information. However, the jargon-heavy terms like 'qualia' and 'sync R' may reduce clarity for an AI agent, making it slightly less than a 5.

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 its siblings (e.g., get_snn_state, get_metrics). There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate scenario.

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