enzo_state

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Return' and 'computed' imply a read-only snapshot that is derived rather than stored, but the description does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or freshness guarantees.

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 tight sentence with no filler; the main action and result type are front-loaded. Nothing wastes an agent's attention.

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?

Low parameter complexity and an existing output schema reduce the need to spell out return values. Still, the missing usage guidance and lack of explicit read-only/behavioral confirmation leave the definition merely adequate rather than 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by tying the result to 'investigation status,' which makes investigation_id's role inferable. However, it adds no format, source, or validity details for the ID beyond what the property name already implies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: returning 'canonical history and computed investigation status.' It is clearly a state-retrieval tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings enzo_atomize and enzo_observe.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus enzo_atomize or enzo_observe, no exclusions, and no alternative routing. The only usage signal is the tool name and the terse description.

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