arcwall_check_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes inputs and purpose but omits output format, side effects, permission requirements, or any limitations (e.g., whether it modifies state). The tool likely produces a report, but this is not stated.

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 concise sentences, no redundant information. Front-loaded with core purpose and immediately useful detail about test messages.

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 being a test tool with a non-obvious return type, the description provides no information about output or how results are presented. Without an output schema, this is a significant gap for the agent to understand what to expect.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context that testMessages are for 'multi-turn vulnerabilities,' which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Optional test messages to check multi-turn vulnerabilities.'

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 explicitly states the tool tests system prompts for injection, jailbreak, guardrails, and excessive agency, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like arcwall_scan_secrets or arcwall_scan_dependencies.

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 implies when to use (for testing prompt security) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It does not mention exclusion criteria like prerequisites or limitations.

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