retrieve_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a retrieve and mentions it returns a State object, which is minimal but sufficient for a simple read. It doesn't disclose error behavior, prerequisites, or any side effects, but for a non-destructive getter this level of transparency is adequate but not outstanding.

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 with the primary purpose. The Args section is neatly formatted and adds necessary parameter details. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no fluff 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?

This is a simple retrieval tool with two parameters, and the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. An output schema exists, so the return type doesn't need elaboration. It lacks details on error handling or when not to use, but for its simplicity the information is largely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'UUID of the project' and 'UUID of the state'. This adds meaning beyond the bare type strings in the schema. It doesn't include examples or constraints, but it provides the necessary semantic context.

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 retrieves a state by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_states, create_state, and delete_state by indicating a single-state fetch operation.

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?

It implies when to use the tool: when you have a specific state ID and project ID and want the corresponding state object. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but clearly implies single-item retrieval, setting it apart from list_states. Since exclusions aren't stated, it falls just short of a 5.

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