promptshield.scan_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that role and message indexes are preserved, which is a positive behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies data, requires authentication, or has side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 very concise, but it sacrifices helpful detail. It is front-loaded with the key point, but may be too terse to be useful without additional context.

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 tool has one free-form parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple siblings, the description is far from complete. It lacks details on the return format, how the payload should be structured, and how it differs from promptshield.scan_text.

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 input schema has zero description coverage (0%), and the description adds no meaning to the 'payload' parameter. The payload is a free-form object with no defined properties, and the description fails to explain its expected structure or content.

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 specifies 'scan chat messages' and mentions preserving role and message indexes, which clearly indicates the resource (chat messages) and a key behavior. However, the verb 'scan' is somewhat ambiguous (could imply reading, checking, or analyzing), and it doesn't fully distinguish from sibling tools like 'scan_text'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like promptshield.evaluate_policy or promptshield.scan_text.

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