get_stateful_faults

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable read operations. The description adds valuable context by specifying what data is retrieved (e.g., state, trip count, request count) and the purpose (monitoring after configuration), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific details (e.g., components monitored) and context without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool has no parameters, annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent), and no output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It explains what data is retrieved and when to use it, but could briefly mention the return format (e.g., structured data) for better clarity, though not strictly required.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description adds value elsewhere.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'status of all stateful chaos fault instances', specifying the exact components: circuit breakers, retry-after trackers, and progressive degradation. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on monitoring active fault state machines, unlike tools like 'get_chaos_config' (configuration) or 'get_request_logs' (logs).

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to monitor active fault state machines after configuring advanced chaos rules.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'get_chaos_config' (for configuration) or 'reset_chaos_stats' (for resetting). No exclusions are mentioned, but the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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