get_state

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' weakly implies a non-mutating call, but it never confirms whether fetching state has side effects, what 'last bounded advance' means, or what 'HQ' and 'pause reasons' contain — terms that are unclear without domain context.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the key items front-loaded, which is efficient. But terseness here costs meaning: labels like 'HQ' and 'last bounded advance' are cryptic abbreviations rather than self-contained descriptions, so brevity is not fully earned.

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 is the only source of return-value information, and a bare comma-separated list of nouns does not adequately convey the shape or meaning of a state snapshot. For a tool that aggregates several distinct data areas, the definition should explain what each returned element represents.

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 the schema has nothing to document and there is no parameter semantics to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; the description rightly focuses on what is returned rather than input.

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 verb 'Read' plus an enumerated list of returned items ('time, pause reasons, HQ, player squads and the last bounded advance') gives a partial sense that this returns a state snapshot. However, it never states the resource plainly as 'the current game state' and never distinguishes it from state-reading siblings such as get_changes or get_daily_report, leaving the agent to infer scope.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of when another sibling like get_changes or get_daily_report would be preferable. The agent must guess whether this is a polling tool, a pre-action check, or a general snapshot.

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