document_scanner__scan_base64

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one real trait — 'the type is detected from the bytes' — clarifying that no explicit document-type argument is needed. But it says nothing about whether scanning is read-only, how large inputs are handled, or rate limits, leaving substantial behavioral gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the auto-detection note second. There is no filler and the examples earn their place by clarifying the input format.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is on the thin side: it never explains the shape of findings, whether it is safe/read-only, or how the opt-in detectors interact with the default scan. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 80%, so the schema already documents data, ocr, include, and languages. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond confirming base64 input, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Scan a document given as base64') and the target ('PII and credentials'). The 'as base64' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling document_scanner__scan_document, which presumably takes a path, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 parenthetical 'an attachment, an image a tool returned' gives concrete scenarios where base64 input arises, which is useful routing context. However it offers no explicit when-not guidance and never compares itself to scan_document or the other scan_* siblings, leaving the choice to inference.

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