read_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the stale_warning field behavior and clarifies that the tool never auto-rewrites State from Plan. This is valuable but does not address error handling or what happens when the id is not found; the output schema partially covers return behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with the main action front-loaded. The stale_warning note and the non-auto-rewrite clarification are relevant and earn their place without any fluff.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers key behavioral quirks and side effects, but stops short of explicit usage guidance against sibling tools. The simplicity of the tool keeps this gap minor.

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 must compensate for the id parameter. It says 'by id' but adds little beyond the schema's property name and type. No format, example, or guidance for obtaining a valid id is provided, leaving the semantics minimally explained.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('State document'), and the identifying key ('by id'). The clarification that State is never auto-rewritten from Plan distinguishes it from plan-related siblings like read_plan, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 behavioral context—'read-time nudge only' and 'never auto-rewritten from Plan'—but does not explicitly say when to use read_state versus list_state, write_state, or read_plan. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are named, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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