get_studio_mode_enabled

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

The description adds context by defining studio mode as 'separate Preview/Program' and implies a read-only query. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects or that it returns a boolean, leaving the behavioral burden partially unmet.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains what studio mode means and what state is being queried, though explicitly stating the return type (boolean) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies due to the absence of parameters, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parametrization.

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 that the tool reports whether studio mode (separate Preview/Program) is enabled, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_studio_mode_enabled and trigger_studio_mode_transition by focusing on the boolean state query.

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 does not mention set_studio_mode_enabled or other related tools, nor does it give any exclusion criteria or context about when a getter is appropriate.

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