guardrails_scan_injection

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a cost ('Costs 1 TNC'), which is a behavioral trait, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, side effects, or return format. The output schema exists but isn't referenced; description adds some value but insufficient.

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 that conveys the core purpose and cost. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but misses explaining the output or behavior. It covers purpose and cost but lacks completeness on expected return values and use cases.

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 0%. The single parameter 'text' is not described in the tool description, adding no meaning beyond the schema's type and title. The description should explain what text should contain (e.g., user input to scan).

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 function: 'Detect prompt injection attempts (jailbreak, override, extraction).' This is a specific verb+resource pair, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing solely on injection detection.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools (guardrails_check, guardrails_scan_pii, guardrails_scan_secrets) suggest different scanning purposes, but the description does not differentiate usage contexts or provide exclusions.

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