scan_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses detection types, return values (risk level, findings, anonymized text), and implicitly suggests a read-only operation. However, it could be more explicit about whether the input text is mutated, though the 'returns' phrasing implies non-destructive behavior.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, detection scope, and return/usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler.

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 purpose, detection capabilities, return contract, and usage context. Since there is no output schema, explaining 'returns risk level, findings, and anonymized text' is essential and provided. The tool is simple, and this description is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters ('text' and 'mode'). The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Scans text for PII') and clearly identifies the resource (text before LLM). It also lists concrete detection targets (emails, credit cards, etc.), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. Even without siblings, it avoids ambiguity.

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 explicitly states 'Always run this before sending sensitive prompts to any LLM.' This provides a clear when-to-use directive and implies it as a necessary pre-processing step. No alternatives exist, so no exclusion is needed.

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