ac_get_state

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden: 'live state' implies a passive read with no mutation, and the field list documents what is returned. It does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, whether the call blocks or how expensive the read is, or how fresh the data is beyond the word 'live'.

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 filler, and the payload fields are listed compactly. The fragmentary phrasing ('Live state from the bridge: ...') is dense but slightly telegraphic, which costs it a point.

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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly enumerates the returned fields, and a no-arg getter needs little more. What's missing is the read-only guarantee and any freshness or cost note, minor for a state-read but relevant given there are no annotations.

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 4 applies. The description adds no confusion about arguments.

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?

It states a specific resource ('live state from the bridge') and enumerates exactly which fields come back (camera mode/position/look/fov, car speed, time of year, fps), so an agent knows what it gets. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling ac_status, which plausibly returns a different kind of status, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus ac_status, ac_camera_mode, ac_set_time, or any other sibling, and no mention of polling or freshness expectations. The word 'live' weakly hints at reading current runtime state, but selection guidance is essentially left to inference.

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