prepare_for_external_ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'prepare text locally' and 'return only approved safe output' but doesn't explain what 'prepare' entails, what 'approved safe' means, or any side effects, permissions, or limitations. The description is too vague to convey meaningful behavioral traits.

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, which is concise, but it's under-specified. It front-loads the 'Recommended' label but lacks substantive content. While there's no waste, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, so it's not effective conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of the parameters, the expected output, or how this tool fits into the workflow. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still fails to provide essential context for correct 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%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It doesn't mention any of the four parameters (text, policy, language, response_mode) or their semantics. The description adds no value beyond the schema's basic type definitions, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set these parameters.

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 states the tool prepares text locally and returns only approved safe output, which gives a general sense of purpose. However, it doesn't specify the exact verb+resource relationship or clearly distinguish it from siblings like redact_text or create_safe_copy, which likely have overlapping functions.

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 begins with 'Recommended' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name any sibling tools as alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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