sanitize_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so richly. It lists exact redaction categories, explains deterministic placeholder mapping for IPv4/IPv6/MACs/hostnames/domains, notes preservation of subnet and wildcard masks, and states that it returns clean text plus per-category counts.

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 dense but well organized, front-loading the main purpose and then efficiently enumerating behaviors without filler. Every clause adds useful information, and the return behavior is stated at the end.

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 a single string parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers the input scope, transformation rules, and output summary without needing to duplicate schema-provided return details.

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?

There is only one parameter, config, and the schema provides no description, so the description must compensate for 0% schema coverage. It adds meaning by specifying what kind of content the config may contain and how it will be transformed, though it does not explicitly define the expected input format or encoding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Scrub a config before it goes anywhere' with detailed redaction categories. It clearly distinguishes this tool from network-focused siblings like check_config_compliance and explain_config_diff by defining a unique sanitization responsibility.

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 'before it goes anywhere' establishes the intended context: use this when a config must be shared or exported safely. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the listed siblings compete for the same purpose.

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