get_agent_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by listing return data (confidence, risk, drawdown, etc.) and mentioning a recommended action, which adds value. However, it lacks details on data freshness, update frequency, or potential side effects, leaving gaps for a state-retrieval tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific return details. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and output. It's efficient but could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from returns.

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 tool's complexity (affective state monitoring), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It outlines what data is returned and hints at behavioral output (recommended action), though it could benefit from more context on how the state is derived or used.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing on output semantics instead. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't introduce unnecessary information.

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: retrieving the current agent affective state with specific components listed (confidence, risk, drawdown). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on real-time affective metrics rather than performance analysis, memory recall, or planning. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools like 'get_behavioral_analysis' which might overlap.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for monitoring affective state but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With siblings like 'get_behavioral_analysis' and 'get_strategy_performance', the lack of differentiation leaves usage unclear.

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