classifinder_redact

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the redaction style options and that the output is clean text. It does not detail the detection mechanism or failure cases, but for a redaction tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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 concise and structured with an 'Args:' section. The first sentence clearly states purpose, followed by usage advice. Minor redundancy (second sentence could be merged), but overall efficient.

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 no annotations and an output schema (implied), the description covers inputs and return value adequately. It explains the two parameters and provides example redaction styles. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining both parameters: 'text' (the text to redact) and 'redaction_style' with three options and examples. This compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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's action: 'Scan text and replace all detected secrets with safe placeholders.' It specifies the resource (text) and the outcome (safe to forward to any LLM or logging system). The sibling tool 'classifinder_scan' is distinct, and the description differentiates by focusing on redaction.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this before sending user input to a model.' This tells the agent when to use the tool over alternatives. It also implies a workflow context, making selection straightforward.

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