safety_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (active safety profile, temperature limits, etc.) and implies a read-only operation. It could explicitly state no side effects or permissions, but the listed fields are sufficient for understanding 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then elaboration. No wasted words. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns and when to use it, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly among many safety-related siblings.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds significant value by listing the specific data returned, which helps the agent understand the tool's output without relying on an output schema.

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 it 'Get[s] a comprehensive snapshot of all active safety measures' and lists specific items included, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'safety_audit' or 'get_safety_profile'.

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?

It provides a concrete use case: 'Use this to answer "is my printer safe right now?" in a single call.' While it doesn't explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives, the context among sibling tools implies this is for quick overview, not detailed audit.

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