mureo_state_get

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 discloses critical behaviors: the empty default doc when the file is absent, server_now as the authoritative clock and the warning not to write it back, the precise semantics of each action_log scope, and the inclusion of action_log_scope/action_log_total markers. This is exemplary transparency.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides necessary context (server_now semantics, log filtering, markers). It is somewhat dense and partially repeats schema details, but remains efficient for the complexity involved. A 4 is appropriate.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values. It covers all major fields (version, last_synced_at, platforms, legacy campaigns, action_log, server_now) and edge cases (absent file, filtered log markers). It also explains the index field and how to close pending entries. This is fully complete for a read tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema: it explains the 'byte-identical' legacy behavior of 'all', clarifies what 'pending' includes (past-due and future-due), and describes the index field for closing entries. This extra context earns a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read STATE.json and return its parsed v2 document' and enumerates the exact contents (version, last_synced_at, platforms, legacy v1 campaigns, action_log). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like mureo_state_upsert_campaign and mureo_state_action_log_append.

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 provides clear context for when to use the action_log filter, stating 'pending' is 'for the daily-check evidence loop.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not directive.

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