get_bot_bracket_status

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

Annotations already confirm safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description supplements by detailing what the tool computes (mode, order IDs, prices, protection status) and its purpose (detecting missing stops). No contradictions. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Parse the bot log...'). It covers purpose and return values efficiently. A minor improvement could be combining the last two sentences, but overall concise and free of fluff.

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 one parameter with enum, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description explains the return categories (mode, IDs, prices, protection status) and the use case, providing most of what an agent needs to interpret results. However, the exact structure of the response (e.g., JSON fields) is not specified, and for a tool lacking an output schema, slightly more detail on the return format would be beneficial.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%—the schema provides no description. The tool description does not explain the bot_id parameter or its enum values. While the enum values (mnq, cl, mes, nq) are domain-specific, the agent would benefit from explicit clarification that these are bot identifiers for different instruments. The description misses an opportunity to add value.

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 parses the bot log to determine bracket order status and lists the return values (mode, order IDs, prices, protection status). It also provides a use case ('critical for detecting missing stops after an entry'), which adds context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like bracket_integrity_check or check_unprotected_positions.

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 only implies when to use ('after an entry') via the phrase 'critical for detecting missing stops after an entry'. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent lacks clear decision rules.

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