make_client_safe

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only states the transformation but doesn't mention safety precautions, permission needs, or return format. Lacks depth for a mutating tool.

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?

Very brief (one sentence), but underspecified given 4 parameters. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of necessary information.

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?

Without output schema, annotations, or parameter explanation, the description is far from complete. Agent lacks details on return values, error states, or required inputs.

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 0% and description does not explain parameters (input, saferVersion, mainRisk, solutionFirst). Agent cannot infer how to use optional parameters or their impact.

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 states the tool's purpose: converting internal critiques or rough claims into client-safe language. It specifies both input and output, distinguishing it from siblings like 'critique_claim' or 'rewrite_in_doings_voice'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'can_we_say_this' or 'rewrite_in_doings_voice' may overlap, but description doesn't clarify when to choose 'make_client_safe'.

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