flux_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It implies a read-only operation by describing a 'current board and turn' and suggests a polling pattern. It does not disclose any potential side effects or error conditions, but the behavior is straightforward and unlikely to be destructive.

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, using two clear sentences without extraneous details. It directly states what the tool does and when to use it, maintaining a logical structure.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description indicates the return contains 'current board and turn', giving a basic idea of the result. It doesn't cover error cases or the exact format, but for a simple state-fetching tool, this is adequate context.

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 schema provides no description for the 'code' parameter, but the tool description explains it: it's an optional room code that overrides the default (the room you are seated in). This adds sufficient meaning to the parameter despite missing schema annotations.

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 retrieves the current board and turn for a room, either the one you're seated in or specified by code. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like flux_move (making moves) and flux_join (joining rooms) by focusing on state retrieval.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to call ('between moves to wait for the opponent') and notes the ability to specify any room by code. This differentiates it from the action-oriented sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly exclude other use cases like checking state before planning a move.

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