srd_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and return behavior. It hints at output fields (reinject_due, canon_reminder) and mentions 'Security-Recall Divergence', but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or the meaning of 'Safe Turn Depth'. The jargon is not fully explained, and the agent is left unsure about the tool's operational impact.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core concept, but it is cryptic and dense with jargon ('Safe Turn Depth', 'Security-Recall Divergence'). The structure is acceptable but not as clear as it could be; every sentence adds information, but the wording is indirect and might require external knowledge to understand.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not clearly enumerate the return values or their types, nor does it provide a concrete explanation of how the agent should interpret the results. The instruction to 're-inject the returned canon_reminder' assumes the agent knows what that is and how to handle it. A more complete description would state the exact output fields and the meaning of the safety measurements.

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 the schema provides no information. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not introduce any confusion about inputs.

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 communicates that this tool relates to long-session safety and tracks interaction count vs Safe Turn Depth, but it lacks a direct verb like 'check' or 'retrieve'. The phrase 'Long-session safety' describes a concept rather than a clear action, making the purpose somewhat vague. It does distinguish itself from siblings by its unique focus, but the intended operation is only implied.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'Long-session safety' hints at a niche context (long sessions), but there is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' statement. The conditional instruction about reinject_due=true explains how to handle output, not when to invoke the tool. Sibling tools like remember and recall are not referenced.

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