scan_pii

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

With no annotations, the description provides thorough behavioral details: it returns only metadata (not values), skips unreadable files, caps very large sheets, and reads the entities file locally without returning the names. It also explains the automatic fallback for the entities file. This gives a clear picture of side effects and limitations, exceeding the typical level of 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 well-structured with a clear first paragraph on functionality and a second on the entities parameter. It is concise enough to convey necessary details without fluff, though the entities explanation could be slightly tighter. The information is relevant and not redundant, earning a high score.

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 description provides a high-level overview of the return value (types, locations, counts) without specifying the exact output format, which is acceptable given no output schema. It covers main behaviors (recursion, skipping, capping) and the entities file. It lacks explicit error handling or return structure details, but for a scan tool, the description sufficiently completes the context.

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?

The description adds significant meaning for the 'entities' parameter by explaining its purpose, format, and default behavior. It indirectly touches on 'max_cells' by mentioning capping large sheets, but does not explicitly link it to the parameter. The 'path' parameter is self-explanatory given the context. Overall, it compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though not perfectly for max_cells.

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 scans files or folders for PII and returns only types, locations, and counts, never the values. It also mentions recursion, skipping unreadable files, and capping large sheets, which fully specifies the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redact_text or make_synthetic_twin.

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 does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over its siblings. It implies usage for scanning and reporting PII metadata, and the safety note ('Safe to surface to an LLM') hints at a use case, but there is no direct comparison or guidance on choosing between tools. The behavior details (recursion, skipping) could inform usage, but explicit 'use when' instructions are absent.

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