get_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect-free, but the wording 'Re-orientation' and the act of listing state items strongly imply a non-destructive observation. It also fails to mention aspects like whether include_history affects output or how metadata is returned, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the purpose with 'Re-orientation' and listing the key state components without redundancy or filler. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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 tool has low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description lists the main state categories, which provides a basic understanding. However, it lacks details about the form of the outputs (e.g., whether cursor position includes coordinates, what 'displays' means, how history is structured) and does not explain the include_history parameter, leaving the description incomplete for an agent to anticipate exact return values.

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 has one optional parameter, include_history, with type, default, and range but no semantic explanation. The description mentions 'recent action history' as part of the state, but does not link it to the parameter or clarify how the integer value controls history inclusion (e.g., whether 0 means none). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not adequately explain parameter behavior.

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 identifies the tool as a state/orientation snapshot, enumerating specific contents: cursor position, displays, last screenshot metadata, kill-switch status, and recent action history. It distinguishes itself from sibling action tools by listing these unique state components, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', relying on the tool name.

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 term 'Re-orientation' implies using this tool when an agent needs to determine current state, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There are no alternative tool names or scenarios mentioned, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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