Deep Scan Content Tool

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by stating that L2/L3 receive original unsanitized content operating at higher compromise risk but better detection. It also clarifies that L1 only runs for stats reporting, which adds behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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 short paragraphs front-load the core function before adding level/risk details and an important cross-reference instruction. Each sentence carries information, though the L1/L2/L3 explanation could be streamlined.

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 description covers what the tool does, why it differs (L2/L3 on raw content), the risk tradeoff, and the need to combine with scan_content. An output schema exists for return values, and the schema documents parameters, so the definition is largely complete for call selection.

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% with meaningful descriptions for both content and content_type, so the baseline holds. The description's 'raw unsanitized content' reinforces the content parameter and 'inline content' clarifies scope, but it adds no parameter-level detail 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?

States a specific action ('Deep security scan') on a specific resource ('inline content') and clarifies that L2/L3 receive raw unsanitized content. It is clearly about deep scanning inline content and references scan_content, but it does not explicitly spell out how this differs from the sibling scan_content_tool beyond the 'L2/L3' mechanism.

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 implies strong use cases: deep scans that need full semantic analysis and raw content, plus a note to cross-reference with scan_content for complete assessment. However, it provides no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance or exclusions for other sibling tools like safe_content_tool or deep_quarantine_scan_tool.

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