get_kid_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe other traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean status, detailed settings). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 just three words ('Get kid mode status'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. For a simple tool with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'kid mode' entails in this system, what the return value includes (e.g., status, settings), or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns user or system configuration data, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly imply any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids confusion, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required'.

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 'Get kid mode status' clearly states the action (get) and resource (kid mode status), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'set_kid_mode' or explain what 'kid mode' means in this context, leaving some ambiguity about the specific domain or system.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'set_kid_mode' for modifying kid mode, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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