scan_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral value: no network calls (no external side effects) and privacy stripping of private data before analysis. However, it never says what the tool returns (a verdict, a list of flags, a score) despite there being no output schema, and says nothing about limits or input constraints.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the tactic parenthetical earning its length by making the scope concrete. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description omits two things the agent needs: what the scan returns and what the parameters expect. The privacy/network note is helpful but the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description would need to compensate, but it mentions neither `text` nor `lang`. In particular the `lang` parameter (default 'en') is left completely unexplained in both places — supported language codes, behavior for unsupported languages, whether text is required raw message content.

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?

States a specific verb (scan) and resource (a crypto pitch message) and enumerates the exact tactic classes it detects, which makes the scope unmistakable next to check_token, token_history, and get_report. An agent can tell this is message-level scam-tactic analysis, not token or history lookup, without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'without touching the network' implies a safe local pre-check, which hints at when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no sibling is named as an alternative. Usage is inferable from the purpose rather than stated.

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