cw_get_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two useful behaviors: it reports staleness, and it explains why the result is empty when nothing has been observed yet (implying an explanatory empty result rather than an error). It does not describe the shape of an observation payload, but this is meaningful behavioral context for a read-only lookup.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the edge-case behavior follows. Nothing is redundant with the schema or restated.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the empty-result edge case, but leaves the topic vocabulary and the returned observation content undocumented. An agent can call it, but cannot confidently pick the right topic value.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'topic' parameter, and it does not: it only restates that a topic is involved. The enum values (overview, tracks, mixer, notes, selection, all) are listed in the schema but their meaning and the difference between 'all' and the individual topics are unexplained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the most recent observation for a topic'), which distinguishes it from a list-style read like cw_list_state by emphasizing most-recent semantics. It never names its siblings (cw_list_state, cw_probe_state, cw_report_state), so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 word 'most recent' implies this is the single-value lookup as opposed to a listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer cw_list_state or cw_probe_state. Usage is inferred from the phrasing rather than stated.

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