List Inception items with current state

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it explains that states are decoded into human-readable names and gives the vocabulary for each item type, which is essential to interpreting results.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the state enumerations, then the filter example. The long state lists are dense but each set maps to a valid type value, so most sentences earn their place; it is slightly list-heavy but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some return-value burden: it tells the agent each item comes with a decoded state, but never describes the item's shape (id, name fields) or result ordering/pagination behavior. Adequate for choosing the tool, incomplete for consuming its output.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces has_state semantics and adds a worked example linking type=input with has_state, but adds no format or syntax detail the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (areas, doors, inputs or outputs) with scope ('the API user can see') and explains what 'current state' means by enumerating decoded state names per type. This clearly separates it from siblings like inception_get_events and inception_get_system_info.

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 concrete usage example for the has_state filter ('type=input with has_state=["Active"] lists open zones'), which teaches how to apply the tool. However it never says when to prefer this over inception_get_events or other siblings, nor any exclusions, so usage is implied rather than guided.

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