Get the current, Actor, or script LuaStateProxy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds genuinely new context: phase=observe, cost=medium, produces=structured-observation, and the active-client prerequisite. The redundancy ('idempotency=read-only' and 'Safety: read-only' restate annotations) slightly dilutes it, and it defers failure behavior to tool-schema rather than explaining it.

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 core behavior is front-loaded and clear, but the middle is a run of template-style key=value fragments (phase/cost/idempotency/capabilities/produces/safety) that partly duplicate the annotations, and the trailing 'inspect tool-schema' sentence is generic boilerplate. It is structured but not tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('serializable Id/IsActorState/Event/Actors metadata plus a reusable registry Reference'). For a 2-optional-param read tool this is close to complete; only the failure/invocation specifics are outsourced to tool-schema.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the schema's own description for targetExpression is vague ('Optional validated input for target expression') while the description clarifies it is an Actor/BaseScript expression. That is real added meaning beyond the schema, though the signature line itself only repeats parameter names.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Call getluastate() for the current state, or getluastate(target)...'), and the return shape ('Id/IsActorState/Event/Actors metadata plus a reusable registry Reference') makes the output concrete. It is distinguishable from list-lua-states and new-lua-state-proxy by verb, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 gives usage context ('Phase: observe', 'Requires: active-client') and explains the two invocation forms (no-arg vs target expression), which implies when it applies. However, it never states when to prefer this over list-lua-states, get-lua-state-actors, or new-lua-state-proxy, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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