safety_get_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation ('Return... without changing it'), which is adequate for a simple query tool. However, it doesn't mention potential authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the safety mode isn't set.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the complete purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless query tool.

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 read operation with no parameters and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It could be slightly improved by mentioning what format the safety mode is returned in or potential error conditions, but it covers the essential purpose adequately.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for this tool configuration.

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 specific action ('Return') and resource ('current safety mode') with the explicit constraint 'without changing it'. This distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'safety_set_mode' which would presumably change the safety mode.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'without changing it', which suggests this tool should be used when you need to read the safety mode rather than modify it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'safety_set_mode' for modification scenarios.

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