get_circuit_breaker_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states what is returned, not side effects, rate limits, or safety (e.g., read-only). The 'get' verb implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm or provide additional behavioral context.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Returns:' section is slightly redundant but not harmful. Could be slightly tighter without the Returns section.

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 and the output schema exists (though not shown), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and the general nature of the response. It is complete for a simple status retrieval tool.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining the return structure (dictionary with status info), which aids understanding. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'Get status of all circuit breakers' with specific verb and resource. It further details the return content (states, failure counts, performance metrics). There is no ambiguity and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target different resources.

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 implies the tool is for checking circuit breaker status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or context about alternatives are given.

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