mask_file

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

The description notes that inplace is '慎用' (use with caution), hinting at destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or behavior when output_path is null. With no annotations, more disclosure is expected.

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 structured docstring with concise bullet points, no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the main function and lists parameters, but omits details on mask strategy options, AI detection behavior, and handling of null output_path. An output schema exists but is not used to reduce burden.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It only names parameters with a caution note for inplace, but does not explain mask_strategy values, enable_ai behavior, or path formats.

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 'desensitize file content and save', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling mask_text by focusing on file operations, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mask_text. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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