redact_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about scope—checking multiple layers page-by-page and judging whether sensitive terms are fully removed—but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it generates a report, or what side effects occur. For an audit tool this is a meaningful but incomplete profile.

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 entire description is one dense, front-loaded sentence. Every clause contributes: audit rigor, audit surfaces, judgment goal, and required timing. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover what the audit returns and what is required for invocation. It does not state the return value form (pass/fail, report, etc.), does not explain logo_templates, and does not disclose whether any file is modified. The purpose is clear, but the operational contract is incomplete.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It hints at 'terms' via '敏感词' and the file via '脱敏文件', but it never explicitly maps doc_path, terms, or logo_templates to their roles. 'logo_templates' is entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb '审计' (audit) applied to a well-defined resource—redacted documents—and lists exact audit surfaces ('对象流/文本层/元数据/修订记录/批注/OCR'). It also states the success criterion ('判定敏感词是否彻底移除'), which clearly separates this verification tool from sibling redaction/scan tools.

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 gives an explicit usage moment: run this audit before delivering any redacted file ('交付脱敏文件前必须通过本审计'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the delivery gate is a clear contextual signal.

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