quarantine_content_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool 'proceeds on injection' (no blocking) and treats content as potentially manipulated when blocklist_warning is present. This is adequate behavioral context for an AI agent to anticipate outcomes.

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 concise, using two short paragraphs. The first sentence delivers the main function, and the second provides critical safety instructions. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though the important note could be slightly more succinct.

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 the core behavior and the critical injection warning. However, it lacks details about the return format of the Q-Agent extraction (despite an output schema existing) and does not elaborate on how the sanitization works or what constitutes 'inline content.' This leaves some completeness gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions for parameters like content, prompt, and content_type. The warning about response blocklist_warning is not parameter-specific.

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 the tool's function: 'Sanitize inline content + Q-Agent extraction.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scanning or fetching tools. The verb 'sanitize' and resource 'content' are specific, and the extraction purpose is explicit.

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 warns about injection and instructs how to handle blocklist_warning responses, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like deep_quarantine_scan_tool or safe_content_tool. The guidance is limited to post-processing, not selection context.

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