rs_check_safety

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 discloses what conditions are checked, but does not say whether the call is read-only, what it returns, or what happens when unsafe.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a compact parenthetical listing the two checked conditions. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple zero-parameter check tool, the purpose is clear, but with no output schema the description should explain the return value or outcome (e.g., boolean or error details). That missing piece leaves a clear gap.

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, so parameter semantics are inherently trivial and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 verb and resource: check whether it is safe to start a simulation, with the criteria 'no RAPID errors, controller ready'. It is distinguishable from rs_start_simulation, but it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling status/error tools.

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?

Usage is implied as a pre-flight gate before starting simulation, but the description doesn't explicitly say to call it before rs_start_simulation or when not to use it versus rs_simulation_status or rs_get_execution_errors.

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