scan

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

Describes the output structure in detail: 'violations' summary never contains raw values, 'sanitized_text' behavior varies by action (warn vs redact/mask/hash). No contradiction with readOnlyHint annotation since the tool appears to be a pure computation returning results without side effects.

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 three paragraphs and somewhat verbose. Some sentences (e.g., about server actions) could be condensed. It contains necessary detail but would benefit from tighter phrasing.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, output details, and safe-to-log summary. It is sufficiently complete for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'text' is the input, and 'entities' is an optional array to specify PII types, with clear behavior when omitted vs when a disabled type is requested. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it detects PII in 'text' and returns sanitized text plus a PII-free summary. Verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'redact' (which likely just redacts without summary) and 'is_sensitive' (which probably returns a boolean).

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use the 'entities' parameter and that omitting it applies all enabled filters. Also warns that requesting an unenabled type is an error. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools to help decide between scan, redact, or is_sensitive.

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