get_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the returned content: no statement that it is a side-effect-free read, no auth requirements, no refresh/polling semantics. The 'get' name implies a safe read but this is never asserted.

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 compact clause with no filler, and the most important content (current scene) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of omitting the verb and any usage framing.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the return payload, and it sensibly summarizes it instead. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks context on when and why to invoke it relative to the six sibling tools.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 a noun phrase listing returned data ('Current scene, saved cue names, targets, and running ramps') rather than a verb+resource statement, so the retrieval action is only implied by the tool name. It does not contrast itself with siblings like recall_cue or resend_all, though the 'current state' semantics are distinguishable from the mutating siblings.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the sibling tools (save_cue, recall_cue, set_scene, ramp). No prerequisites, timing, or exclusions are stated. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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