check_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it returns a classification decision with specific values, but it does not clarify whether the tool enforces the decision or merely recommends it, nor does it mention side effects like persistence or triggering approval workflows. This leaves ambiguity about what happens after classification.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output. Every word is purposeful, with no redundant explanation or filler.

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?

The description is concise and explains the main behavior and return decision values. Given the tool's role in a safety pipeline and the absence of an output schema, it could be more explicit about whether the decision is a recommendation or an enforced action, and how it ties into approval workflows. However, the core semantics are covered.

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 input schema already covers all parameter meanings with 100% coverage, including role, content, and profileId defaults. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 resource 'a message for safety', and specifies the return decision categories (allow/notify/block/hold_for_approval), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle logging, approvals, and profile updates.

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 'before it reaches or comes from the child' provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context implies it is the classification gate for message safety, which is sufficient for basic usage guidance.

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