prompt_leak_scanner__scan_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses detection scope and that checks are 'checksum-validated where applicable to keep false positives low' — real behavioral context. But it says nothing about output shape, whether scanned content is retained, or performance/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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the input type first, then the detection categories, then the false-positive mitigation. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail. It covers detection scope well but leaves the return/findings format entirely unexplained, which an agent would want before invoking a scanner whose whole value is its report.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already explains 'content' and 'label'. The description adds no further parameter guidance (e.g. size limits on content, what label appears in). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 raw text string) and enumerates what it detects: credentials (API keys, private keys, JWTs) and PII (TC Kimlik No, credit card, IBAN, email, phone). The 'raw text string' phrasing implicitly separates it from scan_file/scan_directory/scan_messages siblings, but no sibling is named 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?

Gives a use context via the example 'a prompt you're about to send to an LLM,' which implies when to reach for it. However, it never names alternatives such as secret_scanner__scan_text or prompt_injection_scanner__scan_text, nor states when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer routing among several text-scanning siblings.

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