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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior, but it only mentions that identifiers are not retained. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what output it produces, or any side effects, failing to provide transparency about its runtime behavior.

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 short and structurally simple, but its brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It says too little to be useful, so while it is concise, it is not effective.

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 tool is severely underspecified. There is no output schema, no error information, no examples, and no explanation of the classification logic. An agent would not be able to use this tool reliably based on the provided description.

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?

Although every parameter has a description, they are terse and generic (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') and do not clarify how each parameter contributes to the classification result. The descriptions add minimal value beyond the schema and are not tied to a clear purpose.

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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what classification means or what the tool actually does. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like domain-shape or file-path-ok, and the tool name 'compatibility' is not reflected in the description.

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 the many similar sibling tools. No prerequisites or conditions for invocation are stated, leaving the agent without sufficient direction.

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