safety_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation reflects externally imposed, agent-immutable limits and enumerates what is reported (read-only mode, confirmation level, allow/deny lists, audit log location). It stops short of explicitly stating the call is side-effect-free/read-only and cheap to repeat, which is the one trait an agent would still want confirmed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then when-to-call, then the immutability caveat, then reported fields — a sensible ordering with no filler. The final sentence enumerating return contents is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, a minor cost.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description still summarizes them briefly. Zero params means nothing is missing on the input side. For a simple status tool, every dimension an agent needs is covered.

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 baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add. The empty schema is unambiguous.

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?

States a specific function — reporting the Bridge's current permission state — with a concrete verb+resource framing. No sibling tool (navigate, click, evaluate, etc.) overlaps this capability, so the agent can immediately distinguish it. The opening sentence alone is sufficient to select it.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-call guidance twice: 'Call it first when an action is refused' and 'before planning anything that changes data.' It also supplies the rationale (limits are externally set, so probe up front rather than fail iteratively). This is textbook when-to-use guidance.

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