get_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the read-only nature and the scope of returned data, including board dimensions, terrain, units, turn number, and win-condition progress. It also describes the fog-of-war limitation, which is critical behavioral information beyond what an annotation would provide.

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 concise, starting with the read-only attribute, then listing returned data, followed by a note on fog-of-war, usage guidance, and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 description thoroughly covers the returned game state elements and the fog-of-war effect. However, without an output schema, explicitly stating the format (e.g., JSON object) would enhance completeness. Nonetheless, it provides sufficient information for an AI agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 input schema has a single parameter connection_id with no description. The tool's description explains that connection_id identifies the server session and is assigned at connect time, adding crucial semantic context that is absent from the schema.

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 clearly states that the tool returns the full game state visible to the user's team, listing specific components such as board dimensions, terrain grid, and unit details. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_legal_actions and get_tactical_summary by positioning get_state as a broad orientation tool.

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 explicitly states to use the tool at turn start before calling get_legal_actions or get_tactical_summary for specific decisions. It also explains the fog-of-war behavior, which helps the agent understand when to expect incomplete information.

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