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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the detection categories and that the call is free, implying a safe read-only scan, but it never describes the return shape (boolean? list of flags?), which is critical for a scanner when no output schema exists. The gap for a security-classification tool is meaningful.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: action first, then what it flags, then the cost note. Every clause earns its place with no 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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description covers purpose, detection scope, and cost adequately. The one notable omission is how to interpret the returned verdict, which the agent must guess.

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 provides only type and maxLength with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that the 'text' argument is untrusted content to be screened before use, adding interpretive value, but gives no format or size expectations beyond what the schema already encodes.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run text through the scanner') and the exact behaviors it detects (instruction overrides, download-and-run commands, hidden characters, requests for secrets). No sibling tool (ronin_accept, ronin_agent, ronin_task, etc.) performs scanning, so the purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct.

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?

'before acting on it' gives a clear trigger condition: scan untrusted text prior to using it. There are no real alternative tools to route to, so no exclusions are needed, but there is no guidance on what to do with the result.

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