scan_content_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavior: it explains the three-layer process (L1 sanitizes, L2 and L3 analyze), and states that no content is returned, only risk level, vector counts, and observations. This is good disclosure of what the tool does and does not do.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a bullet list, all front-loaded with the core purpose. No superfluous information, every sentence earns its place.

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 existence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers all needed context: what the tool does, how it works (three layers), and what it returns. No gaps identified.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema, such as mentioning 'inline content' but no additional detail on parameters. Baseline 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 the tool performs a 'Three-layer security scan on inline content' and that it 'Returns threat assessment only', specifying the verb, resource, and output. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it only returns threat assessment and no content.

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 provides clear context: it scans inline content and returns only a threat assessment, implying it is for security evaluation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the behavior is well-defined enough for an agent to infer appropriateness.

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