dump_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the return structure for both modes and warns that verbose can be large. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or discuss authorization or rate limits, though those are less critical for a read operation.

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 well-structured with a clear, front-loaded statement of purpose, followed by detailed behavior for both parameter values. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 tool with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers both operational modes, the structure of the return, and the implications of using each mode, leaving no gaps in understanding.

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 single parameter verbose is fully explained: non-default (False) returns a lightweight shape, while True adds extensive extra data. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default, and since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates completely.

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 it returns the state of the currently open Appsmith application, listing the core return fields and distinguishing between verbose and non-verbose modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_state_summary, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 explains when to use verbose vs non-verbose based on size needs, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_state_summary or get_widget. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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