get_kill_switch

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the return shape {active, reason, since_ns}, the idle fallback when no snapshot exists, and the read-only nature. This goes beyond the minimum and clearly explains runtime behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: action and output, usage scenarios, and edge case plus sibling alternative. No redundant wording.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, return values, fallback behavior, and relationship to the sibling tool. The return shape is stated inline, so no output schema is needed.

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 100%, so the state_path parameter is already fully documented. The description adds minor context by implying state_path is an override to the runtime snapshot, but this is not substantial enough to exceed the baseline.

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 reads kill-switch state from the runtime state snapshot with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling set_kill_switch by explicitly noting 'to flip the switch use set_kill_switch'.

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?

Explicit usage scenarios are given: 'is trading halted' and 'why was the kill switch tripped'. It also provides guidance on when not to use it (use set_kill_switch instead) and explains the no-snapshot edge case.

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