sanitize_content

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It reveals that sensitive data is replaced with '[REDACTED_TYPE]' tokens, though it doesn't explicitly state that the input is not modified. Still, the behavioral effect is clear.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with purpose, usage, and effect. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is adequate. It could mention coverage or limitations of redaction, but it's sufficiently complete for a straightforward sanitizer.

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 100% for the single parameter ('content'), which already describes it as 'Text content to sanitize.' The description adds context about redacting secrets/PII but does not provide new parameter-level details, warranting baseline 3.

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 ('sanitize') and resource ('content'), and clearly indicates it redacts secrets and PII. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform sanitization.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before including file contents in prompts or outputs.' It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but given no competing sibling, this is sufficient.

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