get_states

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the operation returns (child list, per-child overrides, reference snapshot, state groups), giving the agent a concrete picture of the response. It also frankly states a limitation (only components). This is strong but not exhaustive—side effects or permissions are not addressed, though "Get" implies read-only.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, return payload, and usage constraint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview: what the tool does, what it returns, and a key limitation. It lacks a detailed return format or examples, but given the simplicity of the operation, it is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters (target and cellName). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource: "Get presets/states for a component". It lists concrete return contents (child list, preset names, reference snapshot, state groups) and explicitly limits usage to components, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_object or get_script.

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 when to use it by saying "Only works on components", providing a clear precondition and exclusion for non-components. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-component state inspection, nor does it state when NOT to use it beyond the component constraint.

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