output_enforcer_breakers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves status, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what constitutes 'circuit breaker status,' or any potential side effects. A 'get' operation is typically safe, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys everything needed with no wasted words. It earns its place entirely.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what is returned (status for all tools), and the output schema presumably covers the detailed structure. However, it could benefit from explaining what circuit breakers are or when to consult this status, but this is not critical given the simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the lack of inputs. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description adds no further parameter semantics because none exist.

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's function: 'Get circuit breaker status for all tools.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('circuit breaker status for all tools'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'output_enforcer_status' by adding 'for all tools' and focusing on breakers specifically.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether this is the go-to for checking breakers, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'output_enforcer_clear' for actions like resetting breakers. Users are left to infer usage context.

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