circuit_breaker_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what is shown (state, failures, successes, cooldown) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. It is minimally adequate but could be improved.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that cover the purpose and output. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the tool returns. It mentions key fields (state, failures, successes, cooldown). It could be enhanced by noting it is a safe, read-only operation, but overall it is fairly complete for a zero-parameter stats tool.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No issues.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'circuit breaker stats for all providers'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like configure_circuit_breaker, though not explicitly. A score of 4 is appropriate because it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 vs alternatives. Siblings like configure_circuit_breaker exist but are not referenced. The description does not mention exclusions or typical usage scenarios, limiting its utility for decision-making.

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