scan_input

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 lists the types of injection detected, but it does not disclose what happens upon detection (e.g., return value, error, or modification), nor does it state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires special permissions. The behavioral description is incomplete for a security-checking tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second enumerates the detection categories. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the input and the detection scope. However, it omits the return format or expected output, which would help the agent process the result. For a simple check tool, this is a minor gap.

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 already describes the 'text' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying the kinds of injection attempts detected (instruction override, role hijacking, etc.), which informs the agent what kind of input is expected and what the check will look for. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 verb 'Check' and the specific resource 'user or agent input for prompt injection attempts'. It lists distinct detection categories (instruction override, role hijacking, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_file (files) and scan_output (outputs). This is a specific and well-defined purpose.

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 the tool is for checking user or agent input, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like scan_file or scan_code. No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are mentioned. The context is clear but not prescriptive, making it adequate but not excellent.

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