Check Banned Words

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (checks and returns matched words) but doesn't reveal behavioral details like whether it modifies anything (likely read-only), processing specifics, or edge cases (e.g., case sensitivity, matched word listing format). It adds the endpoint reference but does not go beyond the basic function. Given zero annotations, a 3 is appropriate for moderate 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Check a prompt against a banned-words list and return matched words (SD.Next /sdapi/v1/prompt-banned).' It front-loads the core purpose and includes the endpoint as contextual reference. No wasted words or redundancy. Excellent conciseness.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify the return behavior. It states 'return matched words' but doesn't specify format (e.g., list, JSON structure) or whether an empty result is expected when no matches. With the endpoint provided and basic operation clear, it's complete enough for a simple check tool but lacks detail on return semantics. It's adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (words and prompt) are documented in the schema. The description adds slight value by clarifying that 'words' defaults to the server banned list when omitted, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain format nuances or relationships beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description provides marginal enhancement.

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 purpose: 'Check a prompt against a banned-words list and return matched words'. It specifies the action (check), the resource (prompt), and the output (matched words). It also names the SD.Next endpoint, adding specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like sdnext_civitai_banned (which manages CivitAI banned lists) by focusing on prompt checking.

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 by context (checking prompts against banned words) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like sdnext_civitai_banned or other filtering tools. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided. The parameter note about 'words' defaulting to the server banned list provides some context. Without clearer usage boundaries, it's merely adequate.

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