get_terraform_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious context that availability is gated by Semaphore edition, license, and permissions and that Community routes may return 404 or empty lists. That is real operational intelligence beyond the structured fields, though nothing is said about what the payload contains.

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 compact sentences plus the endpoint path, with the core action stated first and the availability caveat second. There is no filler; every element carries information.

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 single-resource getter with annotations covering the safety profile, an output schema absent by design, the description adequately covers the call and its failure modes. It falls short on how to obtain the three required IDs and on how this differs from the adjacent terraform-state siblings.

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 description coverage is 0% for three required integer parameters, so the description carries the full burden. The path template implies the project > inventory > state hierarchy, which adds a little, but it does not explain what a state_id is or how to discover a valid one (e.g., via list_terraform_states).

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 restates the name almost verbatim ('get terraform state'), which alone would be a tautology, but the appended REST path clarifies that it fetches one state scoped under a project and inventory. It still never contrasts itself with get_latest_terraform_state or list_terraform_states, so an agent must infer the single-vs-list distinction.

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 pick this over get_latest_terraform_state (latest only) or list_terraform_states (enumeration). The availability sentence describes failure conditions rather than selection criteria, so the agent gets no routing signal among the three terraform-state readers.

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