blekline_mask_prompt

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

Annotations only set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which convey little. The description adds the context of an external 'Blekline control plane' and the pre-LLM position, but it does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, what the response looks like, or failure modes. This is partial transparency beyond annotations.

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 that states the action, target, and context. Every word earns its place with 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and context. It does not state the return value or mention error conditions, but given the straightforward nature and clear sibling differentiation, it is reasonably complete.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'text' and 'platform'. The description adds minimal value beyond restating that text is prompt text and does not enrich the 'platform' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 'Mask', identifies the resource ('PII and secrets in prompt text'), and adds process context ('via the Blekline control plane before sending content to an LLM'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that handle policy simulation, event logging, tool evaluation, risk classification, and event emission.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: before sending content to an LLM. It provides the context of a preprocessing step but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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