Forbidden-String Leak Scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so exceptionally: it discloses determinism, no LLM involvement, exit code 6 on hit, literal case-insensitive matching, and the important negation-blind limitation requiring adjudication before acting. This goes far beyond the schema and gives an agent realistic expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key matching semantics, then adds usage context, a critical limitation, and actionable guidance. Every sentence carries meaningful information, and the structure makes the important caveat prominent rather than burying it.

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 having no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to call this tool appropriately: when to run it, what it catches, how it behaves, how to interpret results, and how it differs from related tools. The only minor omission is the explicit success-code behavior, but 'Exit 6 on a hit' is sufficient to signal contract expectations.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining what kinds of deny terms are appropriate ('strings that are wrong in EVERY context'), what files should be scanned (customer-facing), and how a hit should be interpreted. This exceeds the schema-only baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scan customer-facing files for deny-list terms (CASE-INSENSITIVE literal match...).' It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling lens_consistency_markers by contrasting case-sensitivity, so an agent can distinguish this tool without opening schemas.

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 gives an explicit invocation rule: 'Run this on EVERY customer-facing file before any irreversible publish.' It also states what alternatives do not cover ('A credential scanner will not find these') and provides negative guidance by explaining that claims-you-do-not-make belong in a lens prompt rather than in the deny list.

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