get_app_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does enumerate the returned fields, which is helpful, but it does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., app must be ready), or error behavior. While a getter is presumably side-effect-free, the description alone provides limited behavioral context beyond the output schema.

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 concise sentence, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact list of output fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, a clear output schema, and a flat structure), the description completely covers its purpose. The listed fields align with the output schema, and the context of app-level state is sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. No additional details are needed.

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, so the input schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter information, but this is unnecessary. The baseline for no parameters is 4, as the description correctly conveys that no input is required.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('app-level state'), listing the key components (page title, URL, focus element, pywebview platform). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_element_info or get_dom_tree, as it focuses on app-wide state rather than element or DOM details.

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 the tool is used when app-level state information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Given that sibling tools like get_app_status could overlap, explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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