get_app_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 key behavior: reads from local cache, performs no API calls, and requires a prior sync step. This gives the agent important context about side effects and dependencies, though it does not describe error handling or return structure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then key constraints. Every sentence adds value without any filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core function, cache behavior, and prerequisite. It could elaborate on what 'app state variables' encompass, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, with the only parameter 'projectId' fully described in the schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get' and specifies the resource: 'app state variables, constants, and environment settings'. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'local cache' and 'No API calls', making the tool's scope immediate and explicit.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite: 'Run sync_project first if not cached', which guides when to use this tool. It also implicitly differentiates from network-based tools by stating 'No API calls'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for when cached data is insufficient.

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