reveal_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It honestly reveals that the tool operates on private data from a volatile memory source, implying non-persistence. However, it doesn't mention edge cases like missing tokens or potential errors.

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 clear sentence, well-structured and front-loaded. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains input, operation, and data source. It could explicitly state the return value is the restored text, but it's implied.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a brief description. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by providing examples of tokens and specifying the data source (local volatile RAM-only session map), aiding agent understanding.

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: replacing masked tokens (like [EMAIL_1], [API_KEY_1]) with original private data from a specific source (local volatile RAM-only session map). This distinguishes it from sibling tools (sanitize_file, sanitize_text), which mask data.

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?

While the description implies usage after a masking step (e.g., after sanitize_text), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance.

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