check_sensitive_file_access

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes external network calls (despite mentioning the SonnyLabs API), what side effects could occur, or any prerequisites like token expiration. The description says 'Checks' and 'Prevents' but provides no operational details beyond parameter explanations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, compliance rationale, and an Args/Returns breakdown. It is not overly verbose, and each section adds value. The compliance sentences are somewhat extra but contribute to purpose clarity, keeping it from being purely minimal.

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?

The description covers the core function, all parameters, and the return type, and an output schema is present. However, it lacks guidance on alternatives, prerequisite checks, or what to do with the returned analysis. For a compliance-related tool, more detail on how to interpret results would be helpful, making it minimally complete but not fully.

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?

The description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining each parameter in the Args block. For example, it clarifies file_path as 'the file path being accessed by the AI agent' and agent_action with examples ('read', 'write', 'execute'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, but could be more detailed about formats or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Checks if AI agent is attempting to access sensitive files using SonnyLabs.ai API.' It identifies a specific verb (checks) and resource (sensitive file access), and this purpose is distinct from sibling tools that handle labeling, watermarking, or risk 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool by referencing EU AI Act compliance and preventing unauthorized access. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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