atas_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It implies a read-only health-check operation and lists returned contents, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or explain behavior when the bridge is unreachable. The output schema covers return values, which softens the gap.

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 short sentences: the first states what the tool returns, the second provides the key usage instruction. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the resource, the returned fields, and the recommended first-call usage. Minor omissions, such as an explicit non-mutating statement or failure-mode description, don't undermine the agent's ability to call it correctly.

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 zero parameters, making schema description coverage trivially 100%. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here.

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 identifies the tool's function as returning the ATAS bridge connection status, enumerates the specific fields (symbol, portfolio, tick size, activation, port, state), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by instructing to call it first. It is specific and meaningful, not a tautology.

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?

'Call this first to verify the bridge is reachable' gives explicit, context-rich guidance for when to use this tool. It does not, however, describe when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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