redact_text_local

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that processing is local and includes a deterministic fallback, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what the output format is.

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 redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and appends a parenthetical with technical context, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description should clarify return behavior and limitations. It vaguely references an 'orchestrator with deterministic fallback' but does not explain what the tool returns or any edge cases, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding for correct invocation.

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 both parameters described in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 redacts sensitive content from provided text, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from email-oriented sibling tools by focusing on generic text processing and a local privacy pipeline.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for redacting text, but lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools like read_email_with_privacy.

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