get_action_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses side-effect-free behavior ('performs no mutation') and the append-only data model, which adds meaningful context. However, it does not discuss auth requirements, error conditions, or scope of the state read.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence where every clause adds value: read operation, append-only state, integrity results, and no mutation. No filler or 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 tool requires two mandatory parameters and has no annotations; the description covers purpose and safety but leaves parameter semantics and invocation prerequisites unexplained. Although an output schema exists, it does not compensate for missing parameter guidance.

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 has two required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention request_id or caller_token at all, leaving their meaning and relationship to the tool's behavior entirely to guesswork.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Read' and names the resource 'append-only action state and integrity results', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling write/action tools like submit_action_request and record_human_approval. The no-mutation clause reinforces purpose.

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 read-only inspection ('performs no mutation') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling names give context, but the description itself offers no direct usage guidance.

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