tc_safety_status

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds what information is available (mode, ceiling, lists, pending tokens), but since an output schema exists and no deeper behavioral traits (e.g., auth, rate limits) are disclosed, it adds only moderate value beyond structured fields.

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, tightly worded sentence fragment that front-loads the key subject (Current safety mode) and lists the remaining relevant fields without any filler. Every element earns its place.

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 zero-argument status tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent what data will be returned and implies a safe read. It falls short only in not providing usage context or routing guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score for a parameterless tool is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 identifies the resource and the specific fields returned (safety mode, ceiling, allow/deny lists, pending confirmation tokens). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like tc_set_mode or tc_audit_tail, so an agent lacks sibling routing context.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for calling, and no mention of alternatives. It merely lists the data exposed by the tool, leaving all usage decisions to inference.

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