mind_classify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds little beyond saying it uses the 'Mind API orchestration layer' and does not explain classification output, risk levels, or failure behavior.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the operation stated first. The phrase 'using the Mind API orchestration layer' is mildly non-essential but not enough to make it verbose.

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 tool with rich annotations, the description covers the core action. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the classification returns, so interpretation of results is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'files' parameter, and its schema description already says 'files to process'. The description adds that files are classified by change type and risk level, but gives no extra format or per-file expectations.

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 gives a specific verb, 'Classify', and resource, 'files', plus the dimensions 'change type' and 'risk level'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives among the siblings. The agent must infer usage from the phrase 'Classify files' alone.

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