scan_untrusted_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the detection method (pure keyword matching), the known false-positive mode and a fixed example, the degraded flag, and the return shape. It omits anything about size limits, cost, or performance for large batches, which is the remaining gap for a batch tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the trust-boundary rationale before the motivation section. Some redundancy in restating that other channels sanitize, and the prose is longer than needed, but every block contributes actionable context rather than 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still explains the result fields and their caveats, which is helpful for interpreting flagged results. For a one-parameter read-only scanner the coverage is nearly complete; only batch sizing and the meaning of the risk field's scale are unspecified.

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% for the single 'texts' array parameter, so the schema adds nothing. The description only indirectly conveys batch semantics via the return shape ({n, flagged:[{index, ...}]}), showing each input is scanned independently with per-item indices. It never states format, limits, or how previews are truncated.

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+resource: scan arbitrary external text for injection. It explicitly contrasts itself with the fetch-time sanitization done by get_comments, so an agent can tell which channel handles which text without opening the 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?

Enumerates concrete trigger scenarios (text from upstream bilibili-mcp, user-pasted pages/excerpts, self-copied passages) and explains that these bypass get_comments sanitization, so they will not be flagged otherwise. It also sets an interpretation boundary: a hit is a 'look again' hint, not evidence, and false positives are real (with a dated example).

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