Read Omarchy bar state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool does not change anything, which is a key non-mutation guarantee. It enumerates the specific state aspects read, which is transparent about scope. However, it does not disclose response format or any potential side effects (though none might exist), which is a minor gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action ('Read') and the object (bar state aspects), ending with the crucial non-mutation note. Every word earns its place with zero fluff.

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-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description lists the main state aspects an agent would need to know. It does not specify the structure or format of the returned data, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission. The description is adequate for an agent to decide whether to call it and what it will return.

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 schema coverage is vacuous (100% by default). Per the rubric, 0 parameters set a baseline of 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and focuses on the read aspects, which is appropriate for a parameterless getter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and clearly enumerates the resource aspects: visibility, position, transparency, active bar, and widget layout. It explicitly states 'without changing anything', which distinguishes it from the setter siblings (bar_visibility_set, bar_position_set, etc.). This makes the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 implies the tool should be used for reading state (as opposed to changing it), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide conditions for selection. Since the sibling setter tools are obvious, the guidance is implicit but not spelled out, leaving some room for interpretation. A more explicit 'To modify bar settings, use bar_*_set' would have strengthened this dimension.

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