unmask_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns originals from a vault and describes two modes, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the vault, what happens on invalid vault_id or text, or any side effects. For a tool that likely interacts with a vault, this is a significant gap.

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 concise: two sentences conveying purpose and mode details. The first sentence clearly states the action, and the second elaborates on modes. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating mode descriptions) without losing brevity.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains modes but does not describe the return format, prerequisites (e.g., that text must have been previously masked), error conditions, or the behavior of the text parameter. The lack of output schema information means the agent has no idea what the tool returns. This is insufficient for safe and 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 description coverage is only 33% (only vault_id has a description). The description adds meaning for the mode parameter by explaining the two enum values, but it does not describe the text parameter at all. The vault_id parameter's schema description already covers its purpose. Overall, the description partially compensates for the low schema coverage by clarifying the mode parameter, but the text parameter remains undocumented.

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's purpose: 'Return originals instead of tags from the vault.' The two modes (canonical for model response, sequential for exact restoration) further specify what the tool does. The name and sibling tools (mask_text, unmask_document) help distinguish it as a text-level unmasking operation.

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 description explains when to use each mode (canonical for model response, sequential for exact restoration), but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool, nor does it compare it to alternatives like unmask_document or verify_text. The guidance is implicit through the mode descriptions, but lacks explicit exclusions or context for choosing between siblings.

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