Get agent state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the tool exposes (active issue, current subtask, completed subtasks, last sync timestamp) and where that comes from, but says nothing about behavior when .lognexus/state.json does not yet exist (empty object, error, or defaults) or whether the read has side effects.

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 that names the resource, its backing file, and the returned fields with zero 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value, and it enumerates the persisted fields adequately. The only material omission is the empty/missing-state behavior for a tool that is likely called before state is initialized.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to fetch the full state.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns the persistent agent state, naming the backing file (.lognexus/state.json) and the exact fields returned. It is clearly the read counterpart to state_set_task/state_sync/state_clear, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the getter naming and the enumeration of persisted fields, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus lognexus_status or the state mutation siblings, and no prerequisites 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.