redact_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'locally detected' suggesting local processing, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or what happens to the original text. It lacks details on side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 with no fluff, directly stating the core function. It is well-structured and front-loaded, containing only essential information.

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 tool has 2 parameters and an output schema, but the description lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details. While the output schema may cover return values, the description does not explain the 'policy' parameter or potential side effects. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly.

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 does not explain the 'text' or 'policy' parameters. It only mentions 'personal information' and 'placeholders' without mapping them to the input schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Replace locally detected personal information with safe placeholders' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('personal information'). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_text or restore_text, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. Usage is only implied by the action, offering no explicit 'when to use' direction.

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