promptguard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions scoring with dimensions and a cost of $0.002 USDC, but does not explain what 'flagged dimensions' are, the impact of sensitivity, or return format beyond a number. Additional details would improve transparency.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose, followed by a concise usage instruction and cost note. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant or tangential information.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential usage intent and cost, but lacks details on output structure, sensitivity options, and potential side effects. It is adequate for basic usage but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must add meaning. The description only addresses the 'prompt' parameter ('untrained input' and 'run on any user-provided prompt'). The 'sensitivity' parameter with enum values is not explained at all, leaving ambiguity about its effect.

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 verb 'score', the resource 'untrusted input for prompt injection risk', and the output range (0-100) with flagged dimensions. It also provides context (run before passing to LLM). This distinguishes it from sibling safety tools like linkrisk or linksafe, which target URLs.

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 explicitly says 'Run on any user-provided prompt before passing to a downstream LLM', clearly indicating when to use the tool. It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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