get_safety_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what is returned (safety tier and dev mode status), implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is side-effect-free, nor does it mention any prerequisites or potential failures, but the simplicity and getter nature make it sufficiently transparent.

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 action ('Return') and the key output details. There is no wasted wording, and every element contributes to clarity.

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 simple getter with no parameters, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what is returned (safety tier and dev mode status) and the possible tier values. The presence of an output schema likely covers the precise format, so no further detail is required.

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 the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no params). Per the calibration baseline, a zero-parameter tool merits a score of 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, as none exist.

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 function: it returns the current safety tier and dev mode status. The verb 'Return' is specific, and the resource (safety state) is well-defined. It distinguishes from sibling setters like enable_writes or disable_dev_mode by being a getter.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implicitly a query tool to check state before performing mutating operations, no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided. The lack of explicit usage context lowers the score.

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