Classify software-development task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by stating the deterministic classification result (one of 9 types) and the return of a protocol name, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action and output, then add the routing purpose. Every phrase earns its place, and the 9 task types are compactly enumerated without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only classification tool, the description is largely complete: it names the input, the output (protocol name), and the task type taxonomy. A slightly fuller explanation of what a 'protocol name' refers to could help, but the sibling tools and title provide enough surrounding context.

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 100%, and the input schema already documents the single 'description' parameter with examples. The description does not need to add parameter details; it reinforces the input but does not significantly expand on what the schema already provides.

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 ('classify'), a clear resource ('task description'), and the exact output ('one of GodPrompt's 9 task types ... return the matching protocol name'). It also lists all 9 types, making the tool's scope unambiguous and clearly different from the sibling getter 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 phrase 'Useful for routing tasks through the right workflow' gives clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the routing purpose is specific enough to guide selection among the sibling getter tools.

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