sanitize_text

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that scrubbing is local, replaces with placeholders like [EMAIL_1], and lists types of items removed. It does not cover all behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, idempotency), but is sufficient for typical use.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a usage reminder. Each sentence adds necessary context.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage. It lacks explicit mention of return format but is adequate given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds a concrete placeholder example ([EMAIL_1]) and clarifies the replacement behavior, but this adds limited value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 it scrubs PII, secrets, and credentials from text, replacing them with placeholders. It identifies the specific resource (text) and action (sanitize), and the sibling tools (reveal_text, sanitize_file) are sufficiently differentiated by context.

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 advises keeping data secure before passing to an LLM, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when to use sanitize_file or reveal_text), missing clear alternatives or exclusions.

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