get_current_test_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 provides useful detail on what the response includes (DOM, snapshot, console logs, availableContext), giving a sense of the tool's behavior. However, it does not mention error conditions, prerequisites beyond 'connected test', or whether the operation is read-only, leaving gaps in 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 extremely concise: two sentences with no unnecessary wording. The first sentence clearly states the function and what it returns; the second highlights the critical availableContext field and its tie-in to execute_test_step.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does a good job covering the tool's purpose and key return fields. It explains the availableContext integration, which is important for using the tool effectively. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and exact response structure, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both optional parameters (testFile, testName), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but that is acceptable given the schema already explains them.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current state of a connected test.' It enumerates the included contents (DOM, snapshot, console logs, availableContext APIs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_active_tests or execute_test_step.

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 use case by noting the availableContext field is usable in execute_test_step, suggesting this tool is meant for inspecting state before executing steps. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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