get_allowlist_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the authentication need (floe_... key) and enumerates possible return values, which gives good behavioral clarity for a zero-parameter read operation. It does not describe error behavior or side effects, but for a read-only getter the key disclosure is valuable.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides the return enum and auth requirement. No wasted 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?

For a simple, parameterless getter, the description fully specifies what it returns and the required credential. No output schema or further context is necessary, and the sibling tools provide the broader context for related allowlist operations.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist; the empty schema already tells the agent no arguments are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource (current merchant-allowlist enforcement mode) with the range of possible values ('off | host | vendor | both'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling set_allowlist_mode by focusing on reading the current state.

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 phrase 'current' and the enumeration of modes make it clear this is for reading the enforcement state, contrasted with sibling tools like set_allowlist_mode. It also states the authentication requirement (agent key). It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it, but the context is sufficient for a simple getter.

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