grid_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context: 'save (upsert)' implies overwrite semantics, 'list (all summaries)' indicates that list returns only summaries, and 'get (load one)' clarifies scope. However, it does not mention return values, error behavior, or persistence guarantees.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second enumerates the actions. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

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 CRUD tool with no output schema, the description covers the core actions but lacks information about return values for save, get, and delete. It mentions summaries for list but not what get returns or whether delete confirms success. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate gap.

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 schema describes 'data' and 'gridId' but leaves the 'action' parameter without a description, relying on the enum values. The description adds semantic meaning to each action (upsert, load one, summaries, delete), which helps the agent choose the correct action and infer which parameters are relevant. It partially compensates for the 67% schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a CRUD store for grid configurations and lists its four actions (save, get, list, delete). It distinguishes the resource ('grid configurations') from sibling tools like grid_plan and grid_log, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists actions, omitting any context about when each action is appropriate or how this tool relates to sibling tools like grid_plan or grid_log.

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