classify_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It fails to disclose any side effects, idempotency, reliability, or dependence on optional parameters. The optional fields (status_code, text_sample, content_type) suggest they influence classification, but the description does not explain how.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence. However, this conciseness sacrifices essential details about parameters and usage. It is front-loaded with purpose but lacks structure for completeness.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe input semantics, expected behavior, output format, error handling, or how optional parameters affect classification. For a classification tool with flexible inputs, this is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, meaning the description must add meaning beyond the input schema. However, the description does not mention any of the four parameters (url, status_code, text_sample, content_type), leaving them entirely unexplained. Agents would have to guess their purpose and format.

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's action ('classify') and the resource ('source'), and lists all possible output categories (official, aggregator, blog, forum, interactive, blocked, or error). It distinguishes itself well from sibling tools, which are primarily for browsing, extracting, or searching, not 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as needing to fetch the URL first, or when to avoid using it. This lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to choose appropriately among sibling tools.

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