get_safety_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It accurately describes a read-only operation retrieving status data and lists the data categories. It lacks explicit mention of side-effect-free or read-only nature, but the clear purpose implies non-destructiveness. No contradictions present.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence lists what the tool returns, and the second provides context about Tier 3 features. No unnecessary information. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It specifies the type of data returned and the tool's significance in the system. Adequate for an agent to understand and invoke 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?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information because there are none, which is acceptable. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 specifies 'Get the current safety gate status' and enumerates the components: config, daily/hourly usage, active pauses, cooldowns. It also distinguishes the tool's role by stating 'All Tier 3 features go through this gate', which sets it apart from sibling tools like clear_safety_pause or set_safety_config.

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 implicitly suggests this tool is for checking the safety gate status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like deadman_status or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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