secret_masker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behaviors beyond the schema: placeholders are stable, and output is buffered until final=true. It omits which credential types are detected, how a credential split across chunk boundaries is handled, whether masking is reversible, and any failure behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the flush flag's effect appended. No padding, though the 'within a caller' phrase costs clarity for the space it takes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a stateful streaming tool with 4 required params, however, the definition never states that the tool is stateful across calls or what happens on an incomplete final flush, leaving an agent to guess at multi-call sequencing.

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% with 4 required parameters. The description explains only `final` (flush semantics); chunk, session_id, and stream_id are left entirely undocumented, and the crucial question of whether session_id/stream_id must stay constant across calls for placeholders to remain stable is unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: masks credentials in output chunks, and the sibling set (audit_path_access, dry_run_command, budget_guard) makes the domain unambiguous. The qualifier 'within a caller' is vague jargon that slightly muddies exactly what scope the masking state spans.

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?

Gives one concrete invocation cue, 'final=true flushes buffered text', which implies the streaming/chunked usage pattern. It does not say when to use this rather than not masking, nor any prerequisites or alternatives, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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