get_state

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It goes well beyond a vague 'get state' by specifying coordinate origins, y-axis direction, window fraction semantics, and the fact that disabled modules cause sibling tools to fail with an error until re-enabled. This gives meaningful behavioral context for a read-only introspection tool.

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 dense: every clause contributes something, covering returned fields, coordinate conventions, disabled-feature failure behavior, and the 'call first' guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the heavy parenthetical structure keeps it from being maximally clean.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description itself acts as the output contract. It enumerates screens, windows, zone_sets, screen_zone_sets, layout names, app_rules, toggles, keep-awake state, and disabled_features, and it explains the primary invocation context. An agent has enough information to use it correctly.

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 schema leaves nothing to clarify and the description has no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate because there is no risk of parameter misunderstanding.

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 opens with 'Get the current desktop state' — a specific verb and resource — and then enumerates the exact returned domains: monitors, windows, zone_sets, app_rules, layout names, and disabled_features. This makes it unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling action tools like snap_window and apply_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?

It gives an explicit usage directive: 'ALWAYS call this first before applying a layout, to see which apps are running and how many monitors there are.' It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but as the only state-reading sibling tool in the list, the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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