redact_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety burden and does disclose the critical non-mutating behavior: it sends nothing and issues no approval token. It also explains that it only shows the redaction and policy ruling, which is the key behavioral trait an agent needs to know. It does not discuss return structure or error cases, but for a simple preview operation the essential side-effect behavior is covered.

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 with no filler; the core action is front-loaded, and the important caveat about side effects is placed at the end. Every clause contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

Given one required string parameter and no output schema, the description states the input purpose, the operation, and the side-effect exclusions. It lacks explicit return structure details, but for a preview tool these are inferred from the description 'Show what would be redacted and how the egress policy would rule'.

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%, and the description does not expand on the 'text' parameter beyond implying it is the content to preview. The parameter name and type are self-explanatory, so an agent can likely use it correctly, but the description adds no detail about format, length, or interpretation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') with a concrete resource: what would be redacted and how the egress policy would rule. It also draws a clear boundary from confirm_send by stating it does not send or issue an approval token, so an agent can tell this preview tool apart from siblings.

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 phrase 'without sending anything or issuing an approval token' establishes when this tool should be used: as a safe preview before an actual send/approve action. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer it should be called instead of confirm_send.

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