safety_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It indicates the tool 'shows' and 'displays' settings, implying read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it has no side effects or required permissions. The lack of behavioral details is a gap, though the tool is simple.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by brief details and a usage recommendation. Every sentence serves a clear role without unnecessary words.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool shows and when to use it. However, it could mention the return format or that it is safe to call, which would slightly enhance completeness.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter semantics are needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate.

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 'Show current safety and auto-print settings' and specifies what it displays (auto-print status for marketplace and AI models). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'safety_status' which may also show safety settings. A more explicit distinction would improve clarity.

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 suggests 'Call this early in a session to understand what safety protections are active,' which implies when to use it. However, no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. Given the large set of sibling tools, explicit exclusions would be beneficial.

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