safe_call_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies an informational/read-only tool ('explain', 'return patterns') and lists the kinds of output returned, but never states side effects, permission needs, or whether it mutates anything. An output schema exists, which lowers the bar for return-value detail, keeping this at an adequate 3.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler, front-loading the primary action. The 'Context:' label is slightly awkward but does not waste space.

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?

For a one-parameter informational tool with an output schema, the description needn't cover return values. However, the unexplained 'topic' parameter and the absence of any note on read-only behavior leave gaps an agent would want filled.

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 0% – the single 'topic' parameter has no description and only a default of 'generic'. The description alludes to 'known risky cases' but never explains what topic values are accepted or how 'generic' differs, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 states a specific intent: explain why pcall-style protected calls can't be recreated and produce defensive Lua patterns for risky cases. It's distinguishable from siblings like validate_script or explain_error. The phrasing is a bit abstract, but an agent can tell what it produces (patterns, not execution).

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when code would normally use pcall/xpcall,' and clarifies what the tool can substitute (nil/type/state checks, ok/value helpers). It doesn't name specific alternative siblings or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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