fidelity_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does not navigate and identifies the statuses it reports, but it does not mention authentication requirements, whether it can start the browser, or any other side effects.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. The main purpose comes first, followed by the important non-navigation constraint.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the three reported conditions. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying that it only observes and does not launch or authenticate the browser, but the key behavior is covered.

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 parameter semantics are inherently simple. The description adds no parameter detail, which is appropriate here, and the empty schema is sufficient.

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 states a specific reporting purpose with concrete status fields: browser running, sign-in page, and last session save time. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling actions such as fidelity_login, fidelity_logout, and fidelity_get_accounts, and explicitly notes that it does not navigate.

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 phrase "Does not navigate" implies this is a safe status-checking tool, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it, when not to use it, or which sibling tools to use instead. Usage is inferable but not fully guided.

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