tc_safety_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds which pieces of safety state are surfaced (origin of the mode, pending tokens), which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about freshness, whether the lists are effective or configured values, or how pending tokens are represented.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the primary subject and then the enumerated contents. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly limits itself to naming the state being reported. For a no-argument read tool this is close to sufficient; only the absence of any routing guidance keeps it from being 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 takes zero parameters, so the schema-based baseline of 4 applies. There are no argument semantics for the description to clarify.

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 names a specific resource (safety status) and enumerates exactly what it exposes: mode and its origin, ceiling, allow/deny lists, pending confirmation tokens. An agent can tell this is a read/report tool rather than the mutating siblings tc_set_mode or tc_allow_write, though the noun-phrase form leaves the verb implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent to call this before tc_allow_write or tc_request_confirmation, nor how it relates to tc_doctor or tc_set_mode. The agent must infer the workflow context entirely from the name.

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