ats_detect_adversarial

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the tool's behavior: it only detects, never produces adversarial content, and specifies the three detection classes. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 well-structured with bullet points, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise for the complexity of the tool.

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 one parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and its detection categories. It is self-contained and 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 single parameter cv_path is described with file types and absolute path requirement, adding value beyond the schema's type and description. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3; the description raises it by clarifying the path format and supported extensions.

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 the tool detects adversarial tactics in CVs, listing three specific classes (prompt injection, hidden text, keyword stuffing). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ats_redflag_scan by focusing specifically on adversarial content detection.

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 implies usage for CV files containing adversarial content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like ats_redflag_scan. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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