get_prop_mode_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the annotations—it only lists output fields. It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output content. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every part adds value. No redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return fields sufficiently (phase, balance, days traded, distance to profit target, distance to drawdown, consistency utilization). However, it does not specify the structure (e.g., list of objects) or potential pagination, but the annotation hints (readOnly, openWorld) imply a simple query. Slightly incomplete but mostly 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter (account_id) with 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains its purpose. The tool description does not add new meaning to the parameter beyond the schema. Per guidelines, a baseline of 3 is given when schema coverage is high.

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 it returns autopilot status for all staged/active prop accounts and lists the specific fields returned (phase, balance, days traded, distance to profit target, distance to drawdown, consistency utilization). The verb 'Return' and resource are explicit, and no sibling tool targets the same data.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the unique purpose is clear, there is no mention of use cases or exclusions. A score of 3 reflects adequate but missing context.

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