get_abp_state_info

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose behavioral aspects beyond the basic 'get' operation. It does not mention read-only status, return format details, error conditions, or any side effects (though likely none). The description lacks the transparency expected for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 very brief, one sentence plus an argument list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and the arg list is easy to scan. However, the arg list is redundant with the schema and the overall under-specification qualifies as under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of ABP state machines and the abundance of sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed info' includes, how it relates to sibling tools, or any context for successful use. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need to describe return values, but major contextual gaps remain.

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 lists the three parameters with brief hints ('asset_path: Unreal asset path'), but these restate the schema titles almost verbatim. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description is the only source of parameter meaning, but it adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves. No details on formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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 gets 'detailed info about a specific state in an ABP state machine.' This provides a specific verb, resource type, and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools that target whole machines, nodes, or transitions. However, the phrase 'detailed info' is somewhat vague about what exactly is returned.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_abp_nodes or get_abp_state_machines. The description implies it is for state-level details but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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