redact_local_file

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

Annotations are absent, so description must disclose behaviors. It only mentions that case text is not passed through MCP, but omits other important traits like file mutation, required permissions, supported formats, or reversibility.

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 sentence, 14 words, efficient and front-loaded. Every word adds value, no 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?

Despite having 4 parameters and an output schema, the description lacks essential context about redaction behavior, output format, and parameter usage. It is insufficient for reliable tool selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (input_path, output_path, alias_map_path, include_alias_map). The meaning of 'alias_map_path' and 'include_alias_map' remains completely unclear.

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 redacts a local file to another local file and highlights a key distinguishing feature (not passing case text through MCP). It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling like 'redaction_status'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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