chart_get_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the returned components, which is useful because there is no output schema, but it does not disclose browser-tab interaction, optional target_id behavior, or the expected_layout_id guard.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It identifies the verb and the three return categories efficiently.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value context. It names the top-level outputs but leaves 'selected chart' undefined and omits how target_id or expected_layout_id affect behavior; with full schema coverage and annotations, this is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already explain target_id and expected_layout_id in detail. The tool description does not mention either parameter or add syntax or usage semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific read operation on chart state and names three concrete outputs: the selected chart, saved layout ID, and registered study IDs. It is distinguishable from layout_get or indicator_list because it returns combined chart state, though it does not explicitly contrast with chart_get_session.

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?

Implied use is to inspect current chart context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over chart_get_session, layout_get, or indicator_list, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The read-only framing gives some context but not decision rules.

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