Read view state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds value by enumerating the exact state captured (grouping, presentation, secondary view/chart, cost curve, favourite view, baseline) and by noting 'no undo step', which clarifies that reading leaves no history entry.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the outcome, and it fits the essential payload description into a single sentence. The deeply nested parenthetical around 'view' makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully previews the returned keys. For a zero-argument, read-only getter this is essentially complete; the only missing item is an explicit pointer to the apply counterpart.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4 per the zero-parameter rule. The description correctly avoids restating an empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Reads') and a specific resource ('the complete visible view state'), then enumerates the payload keys (view, timescale, timeFilter, taskFilter, baseline) so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not name its obvious counterpart rillsoft_view_state_apply, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Reads the complete visible view state in one answer' — an agent can infer this is the read side of view state. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the apply counterpart, and no stated preconditions (e.g. a project must be open).

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