Get Answer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small behavioral detail by stating it returns content and a ready/complete flag, but it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., behavior if no answer exists) or any other operational traits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the purpose and return value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description sufficiently explains purpose and return content. It could be slightly more complete by noting that it operates on a specific session or clarifying the 'answer state' concept, but overall it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema covers the only parameter (session_id) with a description 'Session ID', yielding 100% coverage. Baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description does not add further meaning about session_id, such as optionality or impact on results. Thus it neither enhances nor detracts from schema semantics.

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's function: 'Get the current answer state' and specifies what is returned (content and readiness flag). This distinguishes it from siblings like rlm_set_answer (which sets the answer) and rlm_get_variable (which retrieves a different resource).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling would be more appropriate. The existence of siblings like rlm_get_variable and rlm_read_context implies potential overlap, but no differentiation is offered.

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