get_state

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses coordinate origin and y-axis direction, fraction semantics (0..1 of visible area), and the behavioral consequence of disabled_features (tools fail with an error until re-enabled). This is far beyond minimal and anticipates agent confusion.

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 long but every clause adds needed information given the complexity of the return state. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses parenthetical explanations effectively. Slightly dense but not padded.

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 fully explain return values. It covers screens/monitors, windows, layout names, keep-awake, and disabled_features, and even clarifies coordinate system and fraction semantics. Given complexity, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, and schema is empty, so the description needs no parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description properly focuses on the rich return state instead.

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?

Clear verb+object: 'Get the current desktop state' with explicit enumeration of contents (screens, windows, layouts, keep-awake, disabled_features). Distinct from siblings like apply_layout or save_workspace, which are actions; this is a read-only state retrieval.

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 states 'ALWAYS call this first before applying a layout' and explains why: to see which apps are running and how many monitors there are. Also warns that disabled features cause tool failures, so calling this first reveals that context. Provides actionable when-to-use guidance.

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