promptshield.scan_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions what is scanned for but omits details on return value, side effects (read-only or destructive), or whether it modifies the input. The description is too minimal to fully inform an agent.

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 efficient sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. While concise, it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool (nested object parameter, no schema description).

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain the parameter, return format, or how it compares to siblings. The tool is not adequately specified for reliable agent invocation.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'payload' parameter. It is an object with additionalProperties: true, but no guidance on expected structure (e.g., keys, format of text). Agents cannot infer how to correctly invoke the 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 clearly states the tool scans text for PII, secrets, and harmful content. The verb 'scan' and target 'text' are explicit, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'redact_text' (modification) and 'evaluate_policy' (policy evaluation).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like promptshield.scan_messages or promptshield.redact_text. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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