get_live_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool reflects unsaved changes and that setComponentState updates form fields, but it does not mention potential persistence side effects of the 'save' action found in the schema, nor other mutation risks beyond the term 'set'.

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 brief, two sentences, with key information front-loaded. It wastes no words and quickly conveys the dual get/set nature and the specific setter use case.

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?

Given the three parameters, nested object, and absence of output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It explains the high-level purpose and one use case, but it does not describe return value shapes or the full scope of queries, leaving the schema to fill in gaps. This is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, including detailed meanings for each query value and params structure. The description adds little beyond what the schema already states, like the namespace reference, but it does reinforce the setComponentState usage.

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 clearly states the tool gets or sets live frontend state and explicitly mentions that it reflects unsaved changes, including assemblies. It distinguishes the tool by highlighting the harness:* namespace and component creator setter functionality, though it does not name sibling tools for direct comparison.

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 description gives one explicit usage instruction: 'Use setComponentState to update the Component Creator form fields.' It also implies the tool is appropriate when unsaved state matters, but it does not provide exclusions or contrast with alternative tools like get_plan_summary or get_harness_summary.

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