redact_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the core behavior—detecting PHI-shaped values and returning a redacted version—but it does not mention whether detection is heuristic, what kinds of PHI patterns are covered, or any limitations. It is adequate for a simple transformation tool but not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It states the input context, the detection behavior, and the output in a compact structure that is easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what input is expected and what output is returned. It could add more detail about the redaction format or heuristic nature of PHI detection, but the definition is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already documents the text parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of acceptable input types—log line, prompt, error message—which helps the agent understand the intended scope beyond the schema's generic 'Raw text that may contain PHI'.

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 a specific action ('detect PHI-shaped values and return a redacted version') applied to a defined resource ('raw text snippet'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling scan_code by focusing on text snippets like logs and prompts rather than code, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 provides implied usage context: use this tool for raw text that may contain PHI-shaped values. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to scan_code, leaving the routing decision partially to inference.

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