guardrails_check

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It only mentions cost (2 TNC) but fails to describe what happens when checks fail, whether the tool is read-only or destructive, or any side effects. This is insufficient 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 (one sentence) but lacks structure. While it front-loads the purpose, it omits critical details, making it too minimal for effective use.

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 an output schema (present but not shown in description) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'text'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format, length limits, or example values. For a low-coverage scenario, the description does not compensate.

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 performs a comprehensive safety check covering injection, PII, secrets, and toxicity, and mentions a cost of 2 TNC. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that are individual scans.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (guardrails_scan_injection, etc.). There is no when-not or alternative context, leaving the agent to guess whether to use the comprehensive check or individual ones.

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