get_arming_disable_flags

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return type (list) and condition (empty = ready), and advises on session ordering. It could add that the tool is read-only and idempotent, but the current description is largely transparent for a simple getter.

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?

Three sentences: function, return interpretation, and usage note. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words. Well-structured and front-loaded with the core 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?

For a simple no-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose and return interpretation. The note about CLI tools adds practical context. It could optionally describe the format of the flags (e.g., human-readable strings), but the current description is sufficient for an AI agent to use 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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. This is a perfect score for no-parameter tools.

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 retrieves arming-disable flags and explains what the return value means (empty list = ready). It uses a specific verb+resource pattern and distinguishes itself from many sibling get_* tools by focusing on arming status.

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 note 'call this before any CLI tools in the same session' provides clear guidance on when to use this tool relative to other operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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