add_to_roster

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the burden, but it is minimal. It clarifies the scope (local name-matching detection) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the roster is persistent, how additions affect existing entries, or any potential side effects (e.g., deduplication). It goes beyond a simple 'Add' but lacks substantial behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that packs essential information: action, target, and purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb. No filler or redundant content. Five is appropriate for its brevity and efficiency.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and target, but lacks details about behavior (e.g., duplicates, confirmation) and does not mention return values. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not fully complete; a 3 is appropriate.

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 100% (the parameter 'names' is documented as 'An array of names to be dynamically added to the scanner roster'). The description adds value by clarifying that the names are 'new' and for 'local name-matching detection', which enhances the schema's meaning. With full coverage, baseline is 3; the added specificity justifies a 4.

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 'Register new names to the active regex scan roster for local name-matching detection' clearly states the action (register names), the resource (active regex scan roster), and the purpose (local name-matching detection). It distinguishes from siblings (unmask_text, run_secure_query) by specifying the roster for name-matching, which is specific enough.

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 usage context (for local name-matching detection) but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., when to prefer unmask_text). Sibling tools exist but are not referenced or contrasted. Adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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