aiguard_scan

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, but it only restates the tool's purpose. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, whether any side effects occur, or what happens when issues are found.

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 clear sentence with no redundant words, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately front-loaded with the primary action, though it sacrifices useful details for brevity.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to be fully complete. An agent still needs to infer what the tool returns, whether it is safe to call, and when to prefer it over sibling tools. The simplicity of one parameter helps, but the missing behavioral context is a 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the single 'text' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Input/output text,' which is adequate for this single-parameter tool.

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 states a clear action ('Scan text') and a specific goal ('policy/safety issues'), making the tool's core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like aiguard_status or aiguard_suite, but the distinct verb and resource provide enough separation.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over aiguard_status or aiguard_suite, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only vaguely implied by the verb 'scan,' so an agent has no explicit direction on selecting it among siblings.

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