check_data_safety

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. States it scans and classifies, implying no modification. Lacks specifics on side effects, permissions, or error handling. Adequate but minimal disclosure.

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?

Concise with 3 descriptive sentences and bullet-pointed args. Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose but efficient overall.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers input semantics and return values (safety status, classification, warnings). Missing details on edge cases or performance, but adequate for a scanning tool.

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 0%, but the description includes an Args section with explanations for 'content' (text to scan) and 'file_path' (optional context-based classification), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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?

Clearly states it scans content for PII patterns and classifies sensitivity level. Distinguishes from sibling scanning tools (e.g., scan_inbox, scan_literature) by focusing on PII and safety classification.

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?

Implies usage when needing to check data safety for PII, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like anonymize_text or other scanning tools. Lacks exclusion criteria.

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