tunnel_state

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

Without annotations, the description partially conveys read-only behavior through 'reconstruct' and the return list, implying no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, safety, or permissions, which limits 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 very concise with three short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the following sentences add detail efficiently without redundant words.

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 simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose, input domain, and output details. It could explicitly state it is a read-only operation, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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 description explains the domain parameter by mentioning 'for a domain', but it does not describe the limit parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide semantics for both parameters but only partially covers one.

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 reconstructs a cognitive save-state for a domain, listing specific returned fields (thinking stage, open questions, etc.). The gaming analogy aids understanding, but it does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like context_recovery or what_was_i_thinking.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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