development_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what state is returned, whether it is scoped to a session, or any side effects.

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?

It is brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — two words that carry no actionable information and are not front-loaded around any purpose or constraint.

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 read tool with nested object parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should explain what state is retrieved and how the nested arguments are used. It does none of this, though the readOnly annotation at least removes ambiguity about side effects.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the parameters. The nested 'basis', 'intent', and 'session_id' fields plus 'idempotency_key' remain entirely unexplained, leaving an agent to guess at their meaning and format.

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 is just 'development state', a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name with no verb, resource scope, or outcome. It gives an agent no way to tell it apart from siblings such as get_development_state or list_development_states.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. With three similarly named siblings in the list, the absence of routing guidance makes correct selection essentially guesswork.

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