safe_content_tool

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

The description discloses that it runs three detection layers, uses SHA-256 for blocklist, and fails on injection. However, it does not explain what happens when content is safe (e.g., returned as-is or cleaned) or the exact failure mode, leaving some ambiguity.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information.

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 simple parameter structure and existence of an output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects. It could be more explicit about usage context with siblings, but is largely complete.

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 parameter descriptions already present. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'Always untrusted') but does not elaborate on parameter specifics 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Sanitize inline content with all three layers' and specifies it fails on injection. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on sanitization with multiple detection layers and a blocklist hash.

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 implicitly guides when to use the tool (for sanitizing untrusted content) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to siblings like scan_content_tool or quarantine_content_tool.

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