document_getState

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 discloses the complete set of returned values (a read/aggregate operation with no implied mutation) and thereby implies the safety profile, but it never explicitly states that it is read-only, nor does it mention permissions or side effects. Strong on behavior, one step short of explicit.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the returned payload, the second front-loads the routing decision. Dense, zero filler, and no sentence repeats a structured field.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must enumerate return values — and it does so exhaustively (document name, path, page count, size, margins, index, open document names, active layer, selection count). Combined with the explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this 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% — the document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (name or 0-based index, defaulting to the front document). The description adds no syntax or defaulting detail of its own, so this sits at the baseline for a high-coverage single-parameter tool.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('editing state') and then enumerates exactly what state is returned: front document fields, document index, open document names, active layer, and selection count. It also names the two siblings (document_getInfo, document_listOpen) it replaces, so an agent can distinguish it from them without opening either schema.

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 final sentence gives an explicit routing rule: prefer this over chaining document_getInfo and document_listOpen. Both the alternative tools and the condition that selects this one are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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