Safety Verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the safety checks but does not disclose whether the operations are read-only, what permissions are needed, whether a detected jailbreak blocks anything, or what the result format contains.

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 two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the action list immediately available. There is no redundant or wasted 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 four-parameter, multi-action safety tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the basic purpose and modes but omits important context about outcomes, result shape, and mode selection. It is minimally adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, with most parameters documented in the schema itself. The description usefully lists the action enum values, but it does not add much meaning beyond that, such as clarifying which text/input/output fields are expected for each action.

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 states a specific domain and concrete capabilities: jailbreak detection, intent verification, and output checking. It lists the available action modes, so the agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from vaguely related siblings like validate or check_errors.

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 action names imply when each mode might be used, but the description never says when to choose scan_input versus full_check or verify_intent, nor when not to use the tool. Usage is inferable from the mode names rather than explicitly guided.

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