aisafety_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Show' but does not state whether it has side effects, what 'health' encompasses, what the response looks like, or whether any prerequisites exist. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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 short, which is a positive, but it is a structurally awkward fragment with two verbs jammed together ('Show Evaluate') and a slash creating ambiguity. It is concise in length but not clearly front-loaded or well-formed.

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 parameterless read-only status tool, the description still leaves too much unstated. It never clarifies what 'configuration / health' means, what output the agent can expect, or how this status tool relates to aisafety_scan and aisafety_suite. Without annotations or an output schema to fill gaps, the description is incomplete.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies, and the vague 'configuration / health' wording doesn't harm this dimension since parameters are absent.

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 tries to indicate a status/health check for AI safety evaluation configuration, but the phrase 'Show Evaluate' is grammatically ambiguous and the slash-separated 'configuration / health' is vague. It doesn't clearly differentiate itself from sibling tools like aisafety_scan or aisafety_suite, leaving the agent to guess whether this is a read-only status view or an action that triggers an evaluation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It never mentions that this is for inspecting current health/configuration rather than running a scan or executing a suite, so an agent cannot make an informed tool-selection decision.

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