Check that sensitive data masking was applied correctly by comparing original and masked content to identify any unmasked information.
Validate that content masking was applied correctly
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maskedContent | Yes | Content after masking | |
| originalContent | Yes | Original content before masking |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description essentially restates the tool's name ('Validate that content masking was applied correctly') without adding behavioral details such as return value format, error behavior, or what 'correctly' entails. It adds minimal value beyond the annotations.
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 is front-loaded with the action ('Validate...'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward validation tool.
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 absence of an output schema, the description should inform the agent about what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, success message, error). It also lacks any context about when to use it (e.g., after masking generation) or how to interpret results. The description is inadequate for an agent to know how to act on the outcome, making it incomplete.
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% – both parameters have descriptions ('Original content before masking' and 'Content after masking'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. There is no additional semantic context provided about how these parameters interact.
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 states a clear action ('Validate') and a specific resource ('content masking'), which distinguishes it from validation tools for ADRs or rules. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes 'applied correctly' (e.g., comparison of original and masked content), leaving some ambiguity. It is still distinctly about content masking validation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is meant to be called after masking generation or application, or any prerequisites (e.g., having both original and masked content). No alternatives or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.