classify_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the transformation (task description in, protocol name out) and names the fixed classification set. It does not detail edge cases, confidence, or output format beyond the protocol name, but for a pure classification operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. The core behavior, the full enumeration of task types, and the return value are all packed efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter classifier with full schema coverage, the description is complete. It states the input, the closed set of classification categories, and the output. No output schema exists, but the description's statement of the return value covers what an agent needs to know.

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%: the input schema already fully documents the sole 'description' parameter with examples. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that it classifies a task description, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Classify') and a clear resource ('a task description'), enumerates all 9 possible output task types, and states the return value ('matching protocol name'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling retrieval tools like get_god_prompt or get_protocols, which fetch content rather than classify.

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 provides clear context: it is 'useful for routing tasks through the right workflow,' which tells the agent when this classifier should be invoked. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools, but the routing context is sufficient guidance for this straightforward tool.

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