scrub_file_tool

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the file is modified in-place, what PII patterns are applied, error handling, or if the operation is reversible. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely brief (5 words), which is concise but comes at the cost of completeness. It is underspecified and fails to convey essential information. Every sentence should earn its place; here, a single phrase is insufficient.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, side effects, supported file formats, or performance implications. A tool with two parameters and no additional context needs a richer description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters, but it does not. The 'path' parameter likely specifies the file location, and 'output_path' likely defines an alternative output location, but this is not stated. The description adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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 'Scrub PII from a file' clearly specifies the action (scrub PII) and the resource (a file). It is concise and distinguishes this tool from sibling 'scrub_text_tool' which operates on text strings, not files.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'scrub_text_tool'. It lacks context about suitable file types, prerequisites, or conditions that favor this tool.

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