get_circuit_breaker_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by specifying the exact data returned (broker states, trip reasons, timers, velocity) and the nature of the limits (hard-coded, code-level constants). This contextualizes the tool's behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 filler. First sentence front-loads the action and outputs. Second sentence adds the important constraint that limits are unmodifiable and clarifies usage. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, its read-only nature, and when to use it. No additional context is necessary.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter instructions, which is appropriate since there are none. The description does not need to elaborate on 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?

Description clearly states the tool reads the current state of all hard-coded trading circuit breakers, listing specific outputs like broker states, trip reasons, cooldown timers, and order velocity. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing these are code-level constants that the AI cannot modify, making its read-only diagnostic purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use to understand why orders are being blocked,' providing a clear scenario for invocation. It also notes the AI cannot modify these limits, indirectly advising against attempting mutation. This guidance is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools like check_order_safety.

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