ralph.read_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation and enumerates the state sections returned. It does not discuss side effects, but the read-only nature is unambiguous and there are no parameters to complicate behavior.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence names the action and contents; the second gives the precise call timing. Every word contributes 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?

For a parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to call it. Minor gaps remain, such as clarifying the format of 'log tails' or how 'PRD tail' differs from the spec index, but these are not essential for using 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds useful context about what the returned state contains, which is the appropriate value for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the resource ('.ralph state'), then enumerates its contents: config, parsed tasks, spec index, PRD tail, and log tails. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_file and list_files by referencing the aggregated .ralph state bundle.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call at the start of Phase 2/3 iterations.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but for a read-only state-loading tool, the when-to-use guidance is concrete and sufficient.

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