prompt_leak_scanner__scan_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the checksum-validation strategy for reducing false positives and enumerates detection classes, but says nothing about whether the scanned content is retained/logged (a real concern for a leak scanner), whether it is a pure read operation, or any rate behavior. Partial behavioral disclosure against a high bar.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence where every clause earns its place: the action, the motivating use case, the detection classes, and the false-positive mitigation. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does a solid job of conveying purpose and detection scope, but omits any hint of return shape (finding structure) and content-handling/privacy behavior. Nearly complete for a two-parameter read-style scanner, with one notable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'content' and 'label' are already documented in the schema. The description references scanning 'a raw text string' (mapping to content) but adds no format, size, or semantic detail beyond the schema, and never mentions the label parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Scan) and resource (a raw text string), scopes it with a concrete example ('a prompt you're about to send to an LLM'), and enumerates exactly what it detects (API keys, private keys, JWTs; TC Kimlik No, credit card, IBAN, email, phone). The 'raw text string' framing distinguishes it from scan_file/scan_directory/scan_messages siblings without needing to open any schema.

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 example ('a prompt you're about to send to an LLM') implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling scanners (scan_messages, scan_file, secret_scanner__scan_text). Usage is inferable but not routed.

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