get_kronos_shadow_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing a solid safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Read-only observer — Kronos has zero influence on live trades until manually graduated.' This clarifies the tool's non-interference beyond mere read-only status, justifying a score above baseline.

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 efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. The front-loaded structure immediately states the action and resource, meeting conciseness standards perfectly.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and behavioral impact. It lists the exact statistics shown, eliminating ambiguity. Annotations fill safety and lifecycle gaps. The description is sufficiently complete given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%; the single parameter 'bot_key' is documented with default and example. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema—it only mentions 'per bot' which is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade or enhance parameter understanding.

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 Kronos shadow-mode prediction statistics per bot, listing specific metrics (agreement_rate, total_logged, direction accuracy, promotion readiness). It distinguishes itself by focusing on Kronos's shadow mode vs the Bayesian ensemble, providing a specific verb-resource combination that differentiates it from sibling tools like get_bot_health or get_ai_pipeline_health.

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 usage context: monitor shadow-mode stats before manually graduating Kronos. It states Kronos has zero influence on live trades until graduation, indicating when the tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, missing some guidance for selective invocation.

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