generate_content_masking

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the generic action 'generate' without clarifying side effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or whether this is read-only. The agent gains no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the surface-level action.

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 with no wasted words, but it is overly terse. It conveys the core purpose effectively but lacks structure that would help an agent quickly parse key information. It earns high marks for brevity but loses some for missing front-loaded actionable details.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, how instructions should be used, or how this tool fits into the broader masking workflow evident from sibling tools. The agent would need external knowledge to use it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For a tool with a masking strategy enum and detected items, the description could clarify interpretation of these parameters, but it does not.

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 generates masking instructions for sensitive content, indicating the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like apply_basic_content_masking or configure_output_masking, missing the opportunity to clarify that it produces instructions rather than applying or configuring mask rules.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, follow-up actions, or exclusion conditions. Sibling tools suggest a masking workflow, but the description lacks any usage context.

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