omnipress_inspect_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that the operation does not publish. However, it does not state what happens to detected PII, whether data is stored or transmitted, or what the result format is, which matters for a sensitive-data scanner.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the key behavioral constraint 'without publishing' is included without bloating the description. Every word 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?

For a one-parameter tool the description is fairly complete, but with no output schema it does not mention what the tool returns or how detections are reported. Since this is an inspection tool, the absence of result-format information is a notable gap, though not enough to make the tool unusable.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single text parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating specific detection targets (CNJ, CPF/CNPJ, emails, PII), giving the parameter semantic grounding beyond 'Text to scan for PII'.

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?

States a specific verb 'scans' with the target resource (text) and names the sensitive entities detected (CNJ, CPF/CNPJ, emails, PII). The phrase 'without publishing' clearly distinguishes it from sibling publishing tools.

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 'without publishing' caveat and the inspect verb imply this is a pre-publication safety check, and the sibling list makes the contrast with publish/queue/list tools obvious. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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