Получить состояние записи Kwork

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 covered without the description. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that this is a local/durable read with no remote write, but says nothing about failure modes, staleness, or what 'state' can contain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently sized, though arguably it is terse enough that it omits useful context rather than being maximally informative.

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 described, and the tool has only one parameter. The description covers the core purpose but leaves usage routing and parameter meaning unaddressed, which is a gap given the surrounding write-workflow siblings.

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 0% and the single parameter write_id is never explained in the description. The schema supplies the format (UUID pattern/length) but no meaning, and the description does not compensate by stating what write_id refers to or where it comes from.

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 (read) and resource (durable state and saved result), and adds the scope constraint 'without remote write,' which meaningfully separates it from the reconcile_write sibling. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not name siblings explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'without remote write' implies a context (read cached/durable state rather than perform a live check), which lets an agent infer a use case versus reconcile_write. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, so guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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