tv_ui_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only 'get' behavior and names the state categories returned, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether a live UI session is required, whether the call has side effects, or what error conditions might exist.

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 one efficient sentence. It front-loads the core action and resource ('Get current UI state') and then provides brief, relevant specifics about panels and button states, with no filler or redundant content.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only state tool, the description is largely complete: it tells an agent what to expect conceptually. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not specify the exact return representation or possible error conditions, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major deficiency.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and the description instead adds value by explaining what aspects of UI state are covered.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and direct resource ('current UI state'), then adds concrete details about what that includes: open panels and visible/enabled/disabled buttons. This clearly differentiates it from mutating siblings like ui_click or ui_open_panel, which change the UI rather than report on it.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to inspect current UI conditions rather than change them. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus similar state-reading tools like chart_get_state, replay_status, or get_status, and it does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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