redact_content

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

The description discloses the core behavior (redaction and reversible placeholder) but lacks details on thresholds for 'oversized', the nature of reversibility, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but is somewhat sparse.

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 a single focused sentence with no extraneous words, front-loading the key action and result. It is efficient and to the point.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits important context such as what 'oversized' means, how the placeholder is generated, and whether the operation is reversible automatically. Without annotations or output schema, the agent may miss crucial operational 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description merely implies the 'content' parameter is the code/logs to redact. It does not explain format, size constraints, or expected input, providing minimal compensation for the missing schema details.

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 function: redacting oversized code/logs and replacing them with a reversible placeholder. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compress_code and optimize_prompt by focusing on redaction with reversibility.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not specify conditions for use, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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