get_subject_mode

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the backward-compatibility note adds maintenance context. However, it does not describe return values, error behavior, or permission implications, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: the main purpose is stated first, followed by a brief deprecation note and a pointer to the preferred alternative. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Without annotations, an output schema, or parameter explanations, the description leaves important context missing: what the returned mode looks like, how context/registry affect the lookup, and what the resource alternative changes. The compatibility note is helpful but not enough to make the tool fully self-contained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. Only 'subject' is implied through 'specific subject', while 'context' and 'registry' are not explained at all, leaving agents to guess their roles.

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 'operational mode for a specific subject'. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_mode by emphasizing subject-specific scope rather than a global mode.

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 explicitly tells the agent this tool is maintained for backward compatibility and recommends using the 'subject://{name}/{context}/{subject}/mode' resource instead for better performance. This provides clear when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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