classify_ai_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: read-only, stateless, idempotent, rate limits per tier, and no authentication required for basic usage. It could detail api_key behavior but overall is thorough.

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 well-structured with sections but includes inaccurate parameter information (tier vs api_key), which wastes agent attention and harms clarity. It could be more concise by removing erroneous details.

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 complexity of EU AI Act classification, the description covers purpose, legal references, and behavior. However, it lacks details on the output format (even though an output schema exists) and contains a parameter mismatch, leaving gaps.

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 description incorrectly describes a 'tier' parameter (free/pro) that does not exist in the input schema; the actual parameter is 'api_key' with no such tier options. This misleads the agent and fails to explain the api_key parameter's role.

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 classifies AI systems under the EU AI Act into four risk categories and references specific articles. It differentiates from sibling tools like assess_penalties and audit_report by focusing on risk classification.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, advising usage for compliance audits and warning against substituting for legal counsel. This provides clear contextual guidance.

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