fast_guard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'This is advisory -- it returns a recommendation, not enforcement,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also lists the output fields, though it does not explicitly say the tool does not execute the command; the advisory note strongly implies this.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage directive, then a NOTE, then parameter details, then return information. Every section serves a purpose, and the length is justified by the need to document parameters given 0% schema coverage.

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?

This is a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and an existing output schema. The description covers all parameters, defaults, the advisory nature, and the return fields. Given the output schema exists, the description is complete enough for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains every parameter: command and goal are required, workspace is optional context, and the two thresholds have defaults and semantic meaning. This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check if a command or action is safe before running it.' It clearly states what the tool does and mentions the return type (risk probabilities and recommended action). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fast_judge or fast_verify, but the 'before running' framing gives reasonable distinction.

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?

Includes an explicit directive: 'Call this BEFORE executing shell commands, file modifications, or API calls.' This is clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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