detect_genre

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 discloses the output behavior (returns one of four genres), which is helpful, but lacks details on whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that clearly communicates the purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every part is informative. No wasted words.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers input and output behavior. It lacks usage notes or error scenarios, but for a straightforward classification tool, it is nearly complete.

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 already describes the single parameter 'brief' as 'Product description, brief, or design request text' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the input source. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: detecting the most appropriate design genre from a product description. It specifies the verb ('Detect'), the resource ('design genre'), and lists the possible return values ('editorial, modern-minimal, atmospheric, playful'). This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when a product description or brief needs genre classification, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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