get_safety_status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description usefully adds that the tool is never rate limited and that some violations are latched or historical. It does not state permission requirements or further operational caveats, so it is strong but not exhaustive beyond annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence that lists the key returned safety fields and appends the rate-limit note without waste.

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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety profile, the description supplies enough context for correct selection. It identifies the exact safety status contents and adds a useful operational note.

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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple. The description does not need to explain argument meaning, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 safety data returned: E-stop state, latched force violation, dry-run flag, and last envelope violation. That makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from related siblings like get_safety_envelope or get_robot_state.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only lists what the tool reports, leaving the agent to infer that it should be called for safety checks.

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