armorpaint_get_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds concrete scope (what state is inspected) but does not disclose return shape, cost, or failure behavior; this is acceptable because the output schema exists.

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?

A single sentence with a clear action verb followed by a comma-separated list of scope items. No filler words, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary selection context by enumerating what the returned state contains. There is no missing operational information an agent would need to invoke it.

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 description does not need to explain parameter meaning. Per baseline, a no-parameter tool earns a 4; there is no schema gap for the description to compensate for.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Inspect' and enumerates the state categories the tool exposes: objects, triangle counts, materials, layers, assets, selection, and project path. It clearly identifies what the tool reads but does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly broad sibling armorpaint_status.

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 guidance is given about when to call this tool instead of siblings such as armorpaint_get_material_graph, armorpaint_status, or armorpaint_select_object. The description implies it is a general read-only snapshot, but it never states exclusions or alternative routing.

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