textile_get_engine_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or limitations. It is a minimal disclosure that does not contradict anything, but it also does not go beyond the obvious.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the content. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states what the tool returns and its scope. It does not need to elaborate on return formats or side effects for such a simple getter. It could optionally mention that it is distinct from sensory state, but that is not a critical omission.

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 has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific semantics. Since there is nothing to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate—there is no gap to compensate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('core engine execution state') and even clarifies the content ('active running tasks and execution history'). It is distinguishable from siblings like textile_get_sensory_state, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is clear but could be more explicit about what it is not.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like textile_get_state or textile_get_sensory_state. It does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage context from the name and sibling list.

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