analyze_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose that the text is not transmitted, which is an important privacy guarantee, but it omits other behaviors such as whether the tool is read-only, if any data is persisted, or if it requires network permissions. The description adds some value but is not fully transparent.

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 that is front-loaded with the primary action 'Detect personal information' and immediately provides a critical qualifier. There is no wasted wording, making it highly efficient.

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?

While the output schema exists and the main purpose is clear, the description lacks context around the 'policy' parameter and how it modifies behavior. It also doesn't clarify what types of personal information are detected or any edge cases. The tool is relatively simple, so this is a moderate gap.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives obvious meaning to 'text' (the input to analyze) but completely omits any explanation of the 'policy' parameter, including how it affects detection or what values are acceptable. This is a significant gap given the policy has a default and is a core part of the tool's behavior.

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 uses a specific verb 'Detect' with a clear resource 'personal information' and adds the critical scope 'locally without transmitting the text'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like redact_text, restore_text, and create_safe_copy, which perform different operations.

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 a usage context by emphasizing local processing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't say 'use this to identify PII before redaction'.

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