Redact personally identifiable information (PII) from text — emails, phone numbers, IDs, names, etc. Returns the masked text plus a count of what was redacted by type. Privacy-by-default for research workflows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to scan and redact for personally identifiable information. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format (masked text plus a redaction count by type) and the scope of PII detection, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden and does not explicitly mention data handling, limitations, or whether the operation is read-only.
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 with every word earning its place. It leads with the action verb, specifies the return value, and adds a relevant use-case context. No redundancy or filler.
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 tool with a single parameter, the description covers purpose, operation, and return type, which is quite complete. The only minor gap is the exact masking format (e.g., '[REDACTED]'), but this is not critical for understanding how to invoke the tool.
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 input schema covers the only parameter 'text' completely, giving a baseline of 3. The description enriches this by enumerating the types of PII detected (emails, phone numbers, IDs, names), helping the user understand what content is relevant for redaction.
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 a specific verb 'Redact' with a clear resource 'personally identifiable information (PII)' and gives concrete examples (emails, phone numbers, IDs, names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like multi_source_validator and structured_brief_synthesizer, which focus on validation and synthesis respectively.
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 phrase 'Privacy-by-default for research workflows' provides some context about when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: verification, synthesis, redaction, and liveness. There is no overlap in their core functions, so an agent can easily select the right tool based on the task.
All tool names are in lowercase snake_case and are descriptive, but they mix noun phrases (multi_source_validator, privacy_shield_redact, structured_brief_synthesizer) with a simple verb (ping). This is a minor deviation from a fully uniform pattern.
Four tools is well-scoped for a research workflow, covering verification, synthesis, privacy protection, and a liveness check. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The set covers the core research tasks of validating claims, synthesizing information, and redacting PII. A dedicated search or fetch tool is missing, but the existing tools can work around this by web sources internally, so the gap is minor.