lmcp_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool performs a read-only operation by returning a snapshot, but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or failure modes. Some transparency is provided, but not exhaustive.

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 and front-loaded, immediately stating the main action. However, it ends with an ellipsis suggesting truncation, which slightly detracts from completeness.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should cover return details. It begins listing content but is truncated, leaving the full output unclear. This is sufficient for a simple tool but incomplete.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by describing the content of the snapshot, going beyond the schema's empty definition.

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 returns a structured snapshot of the LMCP environment, listing specific elements like server/tray/teams-proxy versions and detected AI client. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('snapshot of the LMCP environment'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_config' or 'run_diagnostics'.

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 usage for retrieving environment state but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lmcp_welcome' or 'get_config'. No when-not or prerequisite information is given.

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