check_safety

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and largely delivers: it discloses that the tool runs rule-based plus optional LLM checks, returns specific risk fields, supports a fast <10ms mode, and consumes detect quota even in fast mode. It does not discuss mutability or side effects, but for a detection tool this is adequate.

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 dense and front-loaded, stating the core purpose first, then detection layers, return schema, fast-mode behavior, and quota impact. Every sentence conveys actionable information without redundancy or filler.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming the main return fields (passed, risk_score, risk_level, threats[], quota) and by explaining fast-mode routing. It does not describe possible errors or quota limits in detail, but for a 4-parameter safety check tool the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the fast-mode semantics, the prompt+output relationship, optional hallucination checking, and the returned risk structure. This is more than the schema alone provides, so a 4 is justified.

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 a specific verb and resource: an AI safety gateway that detects OWASP LLM Top 10 risks on prompt and output. It further distinguishes the tool by enumerating rule engine dimensions, optional LLM analysis, and hallucination detection, making it easy to tell apart from siblings like verify_text or verify_agent.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever an AI prompt/output needs safety screening. It also explains the fast-mode vs full-mode choice and quota behavior excluded. However, it does not explicitly mention cases where sibling tools should be used instead, so no exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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