guard_selftest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does specify that it runs known inputs and returns firing classes, but it omits any mention of side effects, safety, or what the output classes mean. The description is transparent about the action but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and containing only essential details. It is efficient and well-structured without any 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?

For a simple zero-parameter self-test, the description covers what it does and the return concept. However, since there is no output schema, it could be more complete by detailing the expected classes or output structure, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'No arguments.' This fully addresses parameter semantics, matching the baseline for 0-param tools.

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 with a specific verb ('Prove') and enumerates the exact set of inputs it runs (secret, injection, PII, combined, clean) and that it returns which classes fired. This strongly differentiates it from the sibling tool 'guard' by indicating it's a self-test.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative 'guard', nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The name 'selftest' implies testing, but the description does not articulate a clear decision context.

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