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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that 'no identifiers are retained,' which is a useful privacy note, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, makes network calls, has side effects, or what the output format is. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with nine parameters.

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—two short sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is stated up front, and the non-retention note follows immediately. This is appropriately front-loaded and lacks redundancy, though the brevity sacrifices critical detail.

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?

This tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no context on how the parameters are used, what the classification output looks like, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably determine what to pass or what to expect in return. This is severely inadequate given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes each parameter (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify how parameters relate to the classification outcome.

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 the tool 'shows how this request is classified,' which indicates a classification purpose but leaves the nature of the classification undefined. It does not clearly specify what kind of classification (e.g., type checking, compatibility validation) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'domain-shape' or 'validate-json'.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a sibling tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the vague 'compatibility' name and parameter list.

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