percentage_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the returned fields (bankroll, current bet, profit percentage), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, requires an active session, or what happens if no session exists. The description provides partial transparency but omits key behavioral traits for a status query.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the current Percentage betting session status') and adds specific details about returned fields. No extraneous words, earning its place efficiently.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description must provide complete context. It identifies the returned fields but misses prerequisites (e.g., session must be initialized) and does not clarify if the operation is safe (non-destructive). While adequate for a simple tool, it leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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, and the description adds no parameter information since none exist. According to the scoring guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema details, so this score is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current Percentage betting session status', and specifies the included fields (bankroll, current bet, profit percentage). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming the specific betting strategy ('Percentage') and the operation ('status'), differentiating it from other strategic status tools and from other percentage_* tools like init/record/reset.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the naming implies it is for the Percentage strategy, there is no statement about prerequisites (e.g., requiring an initialized session) or exclusions (e.g., using other status tools for other strategies). The usage context is implied but not clearly articulated.

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