Write 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. Saying 'Show' implies read-only behavior, and the description lists what data is returned, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, required permissions, or whether the guardrails are global or per-account, and the contrast with the name 'write_status' leaves ambiguity.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states the action and then lists the specific guardrails shown. There is no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what information is shown, and the output schema covers return values. The remaining gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance and read-only assurance, but the description gives enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema description coverage is 100% and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and names the resource 'active guardrails', then enumerates allowed accounts, budget limits, and kill switch. This clearly states what the tool displays, though the tool name 'write_status' is misleading and could cause confusion about whether it mutates state. Sibling tools are all set/create/list operations, so the 'Show' verb does distinguish it from mutating siblings.

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 alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The description only states what it shows, leaving the agent to infer that it is a read-only inspection tool. No implicit usage context (e.g., check limits before setting budgets) is provided.

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