get_modes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope detail that these are active RC modes / AUX switches and the field set, which is useful but not rich behavioral context (no auth, rate-limit, or return-shape detail beyond the field names).

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?

A single short line with no filler, and the resource name is front-loaded before the field list. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter getter, though the telegraphic fragment style leaves the action implicit.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description should carry the return-value semantics, and it does list the relevant fields (box_id, canal, min/max µs). However, it omits when the tool is applicable relative to siblings such as get_rc, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent deciding what to call.

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 takes 0 parameters (empty input schema, 100% coverage), so there is no parameter documentation burden. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools this sits at 4; the field names in the description describe returned data rather than inputs.

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 is a noun phrase naming the resource ('Plages de modes RC actifs (AUX switches)') plus the returned fields, rather than a specific verb+resource statement. An agent can infer it is a read of active RC mode ranges, but the purpose is not sharply stated and there is no differentiation from siblings like get_rc or get_feature_config.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_rc or get_feature_config. The description gives no context for choosing this tool over its many sibling getters.

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