chimera_safety_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return structure (safety verdict, reason, attack flags, category counts) and mentions pattern-based approach, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects. Assumed non-destructive for a check tool, but not explicit.

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 two compact sentences: first states purpose, second lists returns. No unnecessary words, front-loaded effectively.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema). The description covers purpose and returns but lacks details on parameter behavior (e.g., namespace usage), output format, or usage constraints. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 50% (content has description, namespace has default only). The description adds 'pattern-based' context but no parameter-specific details beyond schema. Baseline is 3 as coverage is not low (<50%).

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 the tool's purpose: 'pattern-based content safety check plus MCP security attack-pattern detection'. It specifies the verb (check, detect), resource (content), and the distinct combination of safety and security analysis, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like chimera_gate, chimera_detect, or chimera_verify.

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 implies usage for content safety and attack-pattern detection but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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