interlock_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden itself. The phrase 'whether the interlock is armed' strongly implies a read-only status inspection with no side effects, but it never explicitly states that. It also does not disclose permission requirements, error behavior, or whether the tool reflects a cached or live state.

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 compact phrase with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core subject and is easy to scan. A complete sentence with a verb would be slightly more polished, but the current wording is acceptable.

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 there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it leaves the domain largely unexplained: what an 'interlock' is, what it means for it to be 'armed', and what kinds of safety policies are possible. The sibling names help, but the description alone is minimal rather than fully self-sufficient.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful meaning by explaining what the status output covers, which is all that parameter semantics could require here.

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 identifies the tool as a status query reporting two specific facts: whether the interlock is armed and which safety policy is in force. It is obviously distinct from sibling tools like arm_interlock and disarm_interlock because it describes inspection rather than mutation. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'reports', so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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 gives no guidance about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as arm_interlock or disarm_interlock. It does not state whether it should be called before changing interlock state, nor does it mention any conditions under which it should be avoided.

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