get_all_bot_ops_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing the tool as safe. The description aligns with these by describing a read-only snapshot, but does not add new behavioral insights such as response format or error behavior. It adds moderate value by listing the included components.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then the usage context. Every word contributes meaning; no redundancy.

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?

While the description lists the components included, it does not specify the output structure or types. Without an output schema, an agent might need more detail to parse the response. However, for a read-only snapshot with 0 parameters, the description is minimally adequate.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies no input is needed, so no parameter explanation is required. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 returns a 'full operational snapshot for all 4 bots' including specific components like process status, PIDs, position states, bracket status, and AI pipeline health. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects (e.g., get_bot_health, get_bot_bracket_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 explicitly advises to 'use to triage any bot integrity issue in one call,' providing clear usage context. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the specificity implies that for narrower queries, individual sibling tools are more appropriate.

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