scan_phi

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

With no annotations, the description should cover behavioral aspects like side effects, auth needs, or data handling. It only states basic functionality, omitting important traits such as whether the tool is read-only or if it modifies data.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description fails to specify the format or content of the 'structured findings' output. Without an output schema, the agent lacks crucial context about what to expect from the tool.

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 input schema fully describes the 'text' parameter with a clear description, and the tool description does not add further meaning. Given 100% schema coverage, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it detects PHI-like identifiers and returns structured findings, which differentiates it from siblings like audit, redact, and validate. However, it does not explicitly clarify the distinction from validate_no_phi, though detection vs validation is implied.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description only states the tool's function, leaving the agent without context for appropriate use cases.

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