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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy note, but it does not disclose what the tool does, what side effects it has, whether it requires permissions, or what happens to the inputs. The tool's core behavior remains opaque.

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), but it is under-specified and fails to front-load the core function. Conciseness without substance is not effective structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns, but it does not. With 9 optional parameters and no explanation of classification logic or expected outputs, the description is entirely inadequate for an agent to use 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'), so the schema already provides semantic meaning. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.

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, what categories are used, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'domain-shape' or 'file-path-ok'. It is not a tautology but provides minimal actionable information.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that appear to handle specific shape checks. No context or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent without guidance on selection.

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