get_ui_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It disclosure that the tool is a read operation that returns state and guidance, with no mention of side effects or destructive actions. It describes the return format in detail, including the effect of setting include_transcript=true. This is transparent 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 well-structured, starting with a clear summary, then listing returns, followed by an important instruction, parameter guidance, and return format details. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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?

For a simple state retrieval tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what it does, when to call it, how to interpret the response, and how to use the output with sibling tools. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single boolean parameter, and the description only repeats the schema's description ('Set include_transcript=true to analyze transcript content'). No additional semantic meaning or constraints are added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 reads the current session state and provides guidance, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('podcli session state'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the first call in a conversation and by listing its returns (video path, transcript status, etc.).

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool 'FIRST when starting a new conversation', providing clear usage context. It also explains how to use the returned clip numbers with sibling tools like create_clip and batch_create_clips. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools for specific scenarios.

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