get_tstates

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

The description discloses that resetting the partial counter is possible, but the main counter cannot be reset via ZEsarUX. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema, though no annotations are present.

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 very concise with two sentences: one for the main purpose and one for the reset behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the main function and reset behavior, but does not specify the return format or type. Given no output schema, this is a gap. Adequate but not 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% with a description for the 'reset' parameter. The tool description adds that resetting also returns the counter, which is not in the schema description, thus adding value.

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 gets the T-state counter via ZRCP get-tstates, and explains the reset behavior for the partial counter. It distinguishes itself from siblings as there is no other tool for tstates.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, given the sibling list, no obvious alternatives exist, so it is adequate but could be improved.

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