Construct a LuaStateProxy for the current state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and 'Safety: read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add genuine context beyond the annotations: a retained Reference is produced and 'no raw proxy crosses JSON.' It omits how/when to release that retained reference, which a construct-and-retain tool should mention.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the core action before the machine-oriented metadata. There is minor redundancy ('idempotency=read-only' alongside 'Safety: read-only') and a meta-sentence deferring to tool-schema, but overall it is 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 partially compensates by stating it returns serializable state metadata plus a retained Reference. Given the medium complexity of a state-handle tool, this is nearly sufficient, though it never explains what the retained Reference is for or its lifecycle.

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% for the single threadContext parameter, so the schema carries the meaning. The description only restates the signature ('{ threadContext: number? }') without explaining what thread context does or when to supply it, adding no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it constructs a LuaStateProxy and returns serializable state metadata plus a retained Reference. This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get-lua-state or list-lua-states, though it never explicitly names those alternatives. The purpose is clear on its own.

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 provides context signals ('Phase: observe; cost=medium; Requires: active-client') that imply when it fits, but it never states when to prefer this over get-lua-state or list-lua-states, nor when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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