Get GeoGebra State

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully mentions that large results are returned as MCP resources, which is a key behavioral trait. It also lists the output formats, giving additional context about what to expect. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or prerequisites like session validity, leaving minor gaps.

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 two sentences with no redundancy: the first sentence states the core purpose and output options, the second adds a critical behavioral note about large results. It is front-loaded and 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?

The description covers the main purpose and the resource fallback behavior, but leaves details like what 'MCP resources' entails and how inlineLimit impacts results unexplained. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is not fully complete for an agent to use without additional inference, though it is adequate for a basic 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 description only implicitly covers the format parameter by listing the output types (XML, base64, fileJSON). It does not explain the purpose of sessionId or the behavior of inlineLimit. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for these unclear parameters, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from names alone.

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 retrieves the current construction state in XML, base64, or fileJSON formats. This distinguishes it from siblings like ggb_set_state (which sets state) and ggb_get_objects (which fetches specific objects), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining a full state snapshot of a session, with clear output format options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficiently clear that an agent would know to use it when the entire construction state is needed rather than individual objects.

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