acm_auto_classify

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

No annotations, so description provides full behavioral context: deterministic, no LLM, returns two buckets with specific structure. Discloses that needs_review cards need agent intervention. No contradictions.

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?

Concise but comprehensive: purpose first, then usage flow, then parameter details with bullet points. Every sentence adds value, no waste.

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 a single parameter and existing output schema, the description fully explains the tool behavior, return structure, and usage. No gaps for an agent to misuse it.

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 has only one string parameter with 0% schema coverage. Description provides complete structure: JSON array with fields front, back, source, suggested_tags, note_type - adding meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool classifies cards deterministically without LLM, returning resolved and ambiguous ones. Distinguishes from siblings like acm_apply_tags and acm_review.

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?

Explicitly says to call this first due to token efficiency, and that only cards in 'needs_review' require agent analysis and calling acm_apply_tags. Provides clear when-to-use and alternative.

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