get_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 by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement of what a returned state includes, whether nested 'basis'/'intent' objects are always populated, or whether the call is cheap or expensive.

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 phrase is short with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structure at all — no sentence stating purpose, scope, or return content to front-load.

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 tool has nested object parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, so the description must do substantial work. A four-word restatement of the name leaves an agent unable to call it correctly or know what it will get back.

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 schema has no descriptions at all, so the description carries the full burden — yet it says nothing about state_id, the nested basis/intent objects, or the idempotency_key. An agent has no way to learn expected formats or which nested fields matter.

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 'get development state' is a verbatim restatement of the tool name get_development_state, so it is a tautology rather than an explanation. It gives no indication of what a 'development state' contains or how it differs from the sibling tools development_state and 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 prerequisites (such as needing a valid state_id), and no routing to alternatives. Given that siblings like list_development_states and development_state plausibly overlap, the absence of any disambiguation is a real gap.

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