Check current safety state: verify remaining quota, detected failures, and whether operations are halted. Get this status to proceed safely with application submissions.
Current safety state: remaining quota today, failures, halted or not.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only status check by describing the current safety state, but it never explicitly states that calling it has no side effects or whether any prerequisites exist.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core concept and lists the relevant status fields. There is no wasted wording or redundant content.
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 and an output schema exists, the one-line description is functionally sufficient for invoking it correctly. The main gap is the absence of usage context or an explicit read-only guarantee, especially since no annotations are present.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.
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 identifies the resource as the current safety state and specifies the data it exposes: remaining quota today, failures, and whether halted. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'reports' and does not differentiate itself from sibling status tools such as setup_status.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call guard_status versus alternatives like preflight, setup_status, or reset_halt. The description does not mention whether this should be checked before operations, after failures, or as a general health check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.