scan_prompt_for_injection

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions applying patterns but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on a match, return format, or any side effects. For a security scanning tool, this is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though brevity comes at the cost of essential details.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description lacks essential context: no mention of output, expected behavior on detection, or how to interpret results. With no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to call it confidently.

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 schema provides only a string parameter with zero description coverage. The description refers to 'supplied instructions', giving some context that the text is the content to scan, but does not explain limits, encoding, or interpretation. Minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Run') on a specific resource ('existing PromptGuard patterns') against a target ('supplied instructions'). It indicates a scanning operation for injection. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling scanning tools like scan_rag_source or check_tool_call_safety. The description implies it is for checking prompts for injection, but does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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