humsana_check_dangerous_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'checks' for danger and fatigue, implying a non-destructive read-only operation, but it does not describe the return value, decision logic, or whether it blocks execution. More detail on these behavioral traits would improve transparency.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose with a clear verb and resource, the second provides usage context with examples. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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 single-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage context well. It lacks an explicit statement of the return value or how the agent should act on the result, but the intended workflow is clear from the sibling tools and the phrase 'use this before helping.'

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 schema documents the single 'command' parameter with 100% coverage (description: 'The command to check'). The tool description adds no further semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource (a command) and the two aspects being evaluated (danger and user fatigue). The examples (rm -rf, DROP TABLE, git push --force) distinguish it from sibling tools like safe_execute_command, making the tool's unique role unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this before helping with potentially destructive operations', with concrete examples. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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