shadowgraph_redact

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

Beyond the annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds concrete behavioral guarantees: no file is written, and journal payloads are also redacted so secrets cannot survive in the audit trail. This is meaningful context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, sibling contrast, and behavioral guarantees. There is no filler or repetition of schema-only details.

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 2-parameter, no-required-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the operation, differentiates from destructive and backup siblings, and discloses the critical journal-redaction behavior. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters and the default pattern set. The description adds the general notion of 'secret-looking keys and values' but does not significantly extend the parameter semantics already present in the input schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('redacted copy of the store export'), and immediately differentiates itself from shadowgraph_backup and shadowgraph_purge. An agent can tell exactly what the tool does without opening the 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 description clearly positions the tool as a safe, non-writing alternative to shadowgraph_backup and shadowgraph_purge, and states that it reads only and writes no file. It does not explicitly enumerate all when-not-to-use scenarios, but the contrast with the two most relevant siblings provides clear routing guidance.

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