screen_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well by disclosing the decision logic: low confidence routes to review, severe violations route to block, and it enumerates the returned action values. It omits deeper concerns like auth, data retention, or failure modes, but the core runtime behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, enumerates outputs, and gives the routing rule in two sentences. No wasted words; the Jev/System One mention adds context without bloating the text.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return fields and the action decision rules well. It does not specify things like default categories or severity scale boundaries, but these are secondary and the schema covers the 'categories' parameter adequately.

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%, so the two parameters are already documented. The description adds little beyond saying 'given text' and echoing the categories replacement behavior already in the schema; it reaches the baseline but does not enrich parameter meaning further.

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 identifies the tool as a content-moderation/classification gate and lists the specific outputs it returns (spam/toxicity probabilities, category, severity score, confidence, action). It lacks a sibling comparison, but the purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

Usage is implied through the phrasing 'Given text, returns...'—an agent can infer this is for screening text before allowing it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no alternative tool to route toward.

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