scan_phi

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the tool's function without disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it describe any side effects, limitations, or security considerations.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks critical context. It does not describe what 'structured findings' look like, the types of PHI identifiers detected, or any constraints on the input text length or format.

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% since the single parameter 'text' is described in the schema ('Plain text to inspect.'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score.

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 'Detect PHI-like identifiers and return structured findings' clearly states the tool's action (detect) and resource (PHI-like identifiers), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'redact_phi' (redact) and 'validate_no_phi' (validate absence). The verb 'scan' in the name is supported.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives (audit_deidentification, redact_phi, validate_no_phi), nor does it specify prerequisites or context.

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