fibonacci_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. The verb 'Get' suggests read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or is non-destructive. This is acceptable for a simple status tool but could be improved.

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 with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and key details.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists three key return fields. However, it omits format or type details (e.g., whether profit is integer or float). For a status tool, this is sufficient but not fully complete.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the output fields (sequence position, current bet, total profit), which the schema (empty) does not provide.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the current Fibonacci session status' and lists specific data included (sequence position, current bet, total profit). It effectively distinguishes from sibling status tools (e.g., cocomo_status, dalembert_status) by naming 'Fibonacci'.

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 usage for Fibonacci session status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fibonacci_init, fibonacci_record) or when not to use it. The agent must infer from context.

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