parseltongue_get_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the return contents (facts, derives, axioms, verification status) which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose behavior if the session doesn't exist, whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'get' but not stated), or performance/latency characteristics. Some value added beyond the schema, but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. The Returns section and Args section are appropriately placed. Minor redundancy: 'Get current state of the session' followed by restatement of returns. Slightly under the 5 mark because the return value explanation partially duplicates the intent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values don't need exhaustive detail in the description, and the description does list the key returned fields (facts, derives, axioms, verification status). However, this is a state-retrieval tool in a session-based workflow; the description doesn't explain how the state relates to other session tools (e.g., does it show the same data that create_session and register_document affect?). Adequate but leaves workflow context implicit.

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 0%, but with only 1 parameter (session_id) the description mentions it in the Args section with a 'Session ID' label. The description adds marginal value by naming the parameter in context, and a single simple string parameter doesn't require deep semantic explanation. With minimal schema, the description names the param which is adequate given its simplicity.

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?

Clear purpose: 'Get current state of the session' with specific verb (get) and resource (session state). Distinguishes from siblings by listing what it returns (facts, derives, axioms, verification status) - this differentiates it from query, list_sessions, and others. Not a perfect 5 because it relies on the session_id param rather than stating a distinct use case scope, but the purpose is specific and clear.

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 vs alternatives. It doesn't explain how this differs from parseltongue_query (querying session facts) or parseltongue_check_consistency. No exclusions or alternatives noted. The description implies it's for retrieving full session state but provides no decision guidance for the agent.

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