get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the extra trait that it does not show secrets, which is a useful privacy disclosure beyond the annotations, while also reinforcing that it performs no operations. This is minor but non-redundant 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 two short sentences with no filler. The core content categories are front-loaded, and the safety/privacy note follows. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only, zero-parameter tool, the safety profile is adequately covered, but 'Modo activo, límites y estado' is vague about what status or limits are being reported. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot anticipate the return structure, and the description does not clearly distinguish this tool from the many status/metric siblings.

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, making schema description coverage trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter meaning, and there is no semantic gap.

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 the tool reports 'Modo activo, límites y estado' (active mode, limits, and status), which gives some content cues, but it lacks a clear verb and specific resource. It differentiates itself only by negative constraints (no secrets, no operations), not by a concrete operation scope.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives. The phrase 'No muestra secretos ni hace operaciones' implies a safe, read-only operation, but it does not name sibling tools or specify conditions. Among many read-only siblings like get_metrics and get_portfolio, the selection remains ambiguous.

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