get_safety_envelope

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: violations are rejected server-side and cannot be overridden. That enforcement note is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before planning. It omits whether the envelope is static or can change at runtime.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the actionable constraint. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but each item is substantive rather than filler.

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, return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, contents, and enforcement consequences adequately. The one real gap is sibling disambiguation against get_safety_status, which an agent would need in order to pick the right tool.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry. The enumerated list of envelope contents usefully pre-describes what the zero-argument call returns.

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 the specific resource and enumerates its contents (joint limits, workspace box, keep-out zones, speed/step caps, force thresholds, gripper limits, approval mode), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_safety_status, which an agent could reasonably confuse with this tool.

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?

"Read this before planning and stay inside it" gives an explicit trigger and an explicit obligation, which is actionable guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative or exclusion — notably it never says how this differs from get_safety_status — so it is clear context without routing.

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