Thales

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that all figures are simulated paper trading, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any performance implications, such as whether the simulation is near real-time, or any side effects like cursor pagination. Adequate but not rich.

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 that efficiently front-load the purpose and then add detail. Every word adds value: 'Summary of every strategy sleeve' followed by explicit fields and the crucial simulated nature. No waste.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is fairly complete. It lists the specific fields returned, which is helpful. It could mention the format (e.g., JSON) or whether the list of orders is sorted, but overall it sufficiently informs an AI agent of what to expect.

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 100% schema description coverage trivially. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate since no additional meaning is required beyond what is already clear (no parameters).

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 provides a summary of every strategy sleeve, listing specific fields (paper equity, evaluation-window return, drawdown, live days, and 20 most recent orders). It also specifies that figures are simulated paper trading, which distinguishes it from possible real-trading tools. Given siblings like sleeve_record, this tool stands out as an overview.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sleeve_record or kill_list. The description only states what it returns, not when it is appropriate to use. For example, it does not say 'use for a high-level view' or 'for detailed sleeve data, see sleeve_record'.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the gate tests operational competence (not alpha), hinting at non-destructive informational nature. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, required permissions, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, key data (frozen date), and interpretive context. No fluff; every part adds value.

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 zero-parameter status tool without output schema, the description sufficiently outlines expected output: frozen criteria, current progress, and binding interpretation. Lacks detail on response format but adequate for agent understanding.

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?

No parameters in schema (0 params, 100% coverage), so baseline score of 4 applies. Description does not need to add parameter info; the tool requires no input, which is clear from missing properties.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reports status of a pre-registered go-live gate, including frozen criteria, progress, and interpretation. Verb 'gate_status' is self-explanatory; description adds specificity about the gate's purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fleet_overview or kill_list.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for checking a specific gate, it does not advise against using it for other purposes or mention sibling tools for different contexts.

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

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the tool returns a list of failures with dates, verdicts, and reasons, which is sufficient for a read-only list. Could mention that it is non-destructive or has no side effects, but the current clarity is high.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the tool's core value and followed by the rationale. Perfectly concise.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple listing operation, the description fully explains what the tool returns and why it exists. No gaps for the agent.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so description doesn't need to add parameter info. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools; description properly implies a full list without filters.

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 lists rejected strategy ideas with dates, verdicts, and reasons. It uses specific verb 'list' and defines the resource uniquely, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fleet_overview or gate_status.

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 use when seeking failed strategy ideas, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide any exclusions or context about when not to use this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, side effects, or required permissions. The description is merely a content summary.

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 sentence that front-loads the key components. It is concise and to the point, without extraneous 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?

Given there are no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool provides: information about Thales, endpoints, and verification standards. It is complete for a reference-type tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but no parameters exist to describe.

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 states the tool provides information about 'Thales', machine-readable endpoints, and verification standards. However, it lacks a verb indicating an action; it is more of a static reference than a dynamic operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools (which are operational) but does not use a clear verb-resource structure.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention any context or recommendations for usage.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that all figures are simulated paper trading, which is critical for agent decision-making. It also lists the data categories returned, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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, zero wasted words. First sentence states purpose and content; second adds crucial behavioral note. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema and simple parameter set, the description adequately explains return data categories. Lacks details on format or limits, but is sufficient for a record retrieval tool with enums.

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% (both parameters documented). The description restates that the tool returns stats, equity, drawdown, and order log, which maps to the 'include' parameter options but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's own enum descriptions.

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 retrieves a full public record for one sleeve, listing specific components (stats, equity series, drawdown series, order log) and noting that all figures are simulated. This verb+resource specification distinguishes it from sibling tools like fleet_overview or kill_list.

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 or any exclusions. Sibling tools are quite different in purpose, but no comparative context is given.

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