gdpr_scan_pii

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the scanning intent. It does not mention whether the scan is read-only, what artifacts it produces, whether the API key is required for the operation, or any side effects or prerequisites.

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 filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and target, earning a high conciseness score.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits return behavior, whether api_key is necessary for basic use, and any scan scope/depth limitations, leaving gaps for an agent trying to predict the tool's behavior and output.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only linking 'codebase' to the directory parameter, and it does not clarify the role of the api_key beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') with a clear resource ('codebase') and a specific target ('PII handling and storage'). It distinguishes itself from sibling scan tools like iac_scan_terraform or pci_scan_codebase by focusing on GDPR/PII content rather than infrastructure or PCI scope.

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?

Usage context is implied by the GDPR/PII framing, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like anon_detect_pii or pci_scan_codebase, which could overlap. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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