get_automation_state

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, error responses (e.g., what if namespace doesn't exist), or permission requirements. The description carries the full burden but offers no behavioral insight.

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 (5 words), which is concise but at the cost of essential information. It does not fully earn its place; a few more words could dramatically improve utility. It is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 complexity (single param, no output schema) and the presence of closely related siblings (list, put, claim, delete), the description is far from complete. It omits return value, behavior, parameter details, and usage context. The agent cannot effectively select or invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 has one parameter 'namespace' (type string) with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'namespace' represents or any constraints (e.g., format, required). There is no added semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Get one automation state entry' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (automation state entry), and the singular 'one' implies it retrieves a single entry, distinguishing it from sibling 'list_automation_states' which retrieves multiple. Slightly more specificity could be achieved by noting it's by namespace.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'list_automation_states' (for listing all) or 'put_automation_state' (for creating/updating). The description lacks explicit context for usage.

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