sanitize_preview

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

The tool has no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool does not raise errors ('without raising'), implying it is non-destructive and safe. However, it does not explicitly confirm idempotency or lack of side effects, which would strengthen transparency.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action and purpose. No wasted words.

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 that the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. With two parameters (one required, one optional with default), the description provides a clear use case and example. However, it could offer more context on when to use the 'strict' parameter, but overall it is adequate for a simple preview tool.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. The description mentions the 'text' parameter and shows an example with 'strict=False', but does not explain what 'strict' does or how it affects behavior. This incomplete parameter documentation leaves the agent needing to infer or test.

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 purpose: to preview what the sanitizer would do to text without raising errors. It uses a specific verb ('preview') and resource ('sanitizer's effect on text'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a safe preview operation.

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 provides explicit use case guidance: 'Use when: "what gets redacted from this output?"'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, which would make it more comprehensive.

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