read_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads and returns state, but doesn't describe what 'state' encompasses, whether it's cached or real-time, if there are permissions or rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the action and return value. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly labeling sections like 'Purpose' and 'Returns'.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation in the description), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'state' means, how it relates to siblings, or behavioral details, making it incomplete for full understanding despite the structured data support.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools as per guidelines.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current state from the context bus'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tools (toggle_tracking, update_state), which would require mentioning that this is a read-only operation versus their likely mutation functions.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention its read-only nature in contrast to update_state (which likely modifies state) or toggle_tracking (which likely changes tracking behavior), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual triggers for invocation.

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