get_hand_state

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true (no side effects) and openWorldHint=true (data may vary). The description adds that it returns joint positions, gestures, pinch strength, and confidence, which supplements the parameters. However, it doesn't mention that results depend on tracking state or that openWorldHint implies variability.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no filler words. Efficient and clear, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet list of returned fields) could improve scannability.

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?

No output schema, but parameters are well-documented. The description covers core return data but omits error conditions, required setup (e.g., hand tracking enabled), and doesn't address the implications of openWorldHint. Adequate for a simple getter, but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters described). The description includes some data fields (e.g., pinch strength) not directly in param descriptions, but doesn't elaborate on parameter behavior or defaults beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool gets the current state of tracked hands and lists included data (joint positions, gestures, pinch strength, tracking confidence). It distinguishes from sibling hand-configuration tools like 'configure_hand_gestures' or 'enable_hand_tracking', but does not explicitly differentiate from other getters.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., hand tracking must be enabled), or conditions that affect results. The description merely states functionality without usage context.

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