sauna.detox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool removes, that it returns both cleansed content and a removal report, and makes a privacy guarantee ('We never store what we strip'). This is solid but doesn't cover everything (e.g., whether the input is mutated or 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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return value and privacy note. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers its core behavior, return value, and privacy stance. The output schema exists, so return details are documented. The main missing piece is parameter specifics, but the description is otherwise complete for selection and invocation.

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 has one parameter 'arguments' (an open object) with zero description coverage. The description says 'untrusted input' but does not explain how to structure the arguments object—e.g., what field name holds the input or what type it expects. This is a significant gap since the schema provides no property details.

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 with a specific verb ('Strips') and resource ('untrusted input'), enumerating the types of content it removes (prompt-injection, jailbreak payloads, PII, secrets, encoding artifacts). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spa.me or massage.detangle by focusing on sanitization/detoxification.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool when you have untrusted input that may contain malicious or sensitive content. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it's a clear context without exclusions.

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