privacy_preflight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses incremental behavior (NEW findings since the last check) and optional trace scoring across eight channels, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it accesses, or what permissions or state it requires.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the usage condition and optional trace behavior. There is little waste and the ordering is agent-friendly.

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 description covers what the tool does, when to call it, and the optional trace mode, and an output schema exists for return values. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, it leaves gaps around the path parameter and the tool's safety/state model.

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%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It partially explains the trace parameter as a run trace used for eight-channel scoring, but the path parameter is only implied by 'this project' and is not described at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checking a project for privacy problems before shipping, and reporting findings that are NEW since the last check. The scope is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as privacy_scan_code or privacy_check_trace.

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?

Gives a concrete usage trigger: call after writing or changing code that touches user data, secrets, logging, or outbound calls. It also explains the optional trace use case, but it does not name alternatives or say when to prefer them over this tool.

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