get_state

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses coordinate system details (origin at top-left, y grows down), the meaning of 'fraction' (0..1 of screen visible area), and the full set of returned data fields. This exceeds typical descriptions and adds meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence packs a comprehensive list of returned data, while the second explains coordinate and fraction semantics. The final sentence gives a critical usage directive. No fluff or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return payload, coordinate conventions, and the relationship to other tools (must be called first). It is self-sufficient and leaves no ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes beyond explaining inputs by detailing the output structure, which indirectly clarifies why no parameters are needed (it always returns the full state). This adds value without needing to document parameters.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource ('Get the current desktop state') and enumerates exactly what the state includes (screens, windows, layout names, keep-awake). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling action-oriented tools like apply_layout and save_layout.

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 'ALWAYS call this first before applying a layout', giving a clear when-to-use directive. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the forward-looking guidance is strong and context-rich.

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