get_bracket_guardian_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: it may perform a live bracket integrity check against Tradovate under certain conditions, which is a non-obvious side effect beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences: the first states purpose and outputs, the second and third explain conditional behavior. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for outputs). No unnecessary words.

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 description outlines return values and conditional behavior, but it does not clarify whether the results of the live bracket check are included in the output, nor does it describe error states or format details. Given no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity.

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, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (last check time, unprotected positions, auto-flatten status), which is meaningful beyond the empty schema.

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 reads the bracket integrity guardian daemon state and lists what it returns. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'bracket_integrity_check' by explaining the conditional relationship.

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 explains that the tool may run a live check when guardian is inactive or has zero positions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'bracket_integrity_check'. Usage guidance is implied rather than direct.

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