Classifies node automation levels from three questions, then decomposes work into minimal units and maps executors to output nodes.json.
FDE 三问判定 → 节点方案（引擎二）——classifyAutomation SSOT 判定（🔄自动/⚡强化/👤暂不动）+ 六步分解最小工作单元（GUIDE §3.2）+ executor 映射，落 nodes.json。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodes | Yes | 待判定节点（与 fde_interview 同构） | |
| enterprise_id | Yes | 🔴 企业标识 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the main side effect—results are persisted to nodes.json—and names the three classification categories. However, with no annotations provided, it carries the full behavioral burden and does not clarify whether nodes.json is overwritten, appended, or requires existing state, nor does it mention permissions or reversibility.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler. But it is telegraphic and overloaded with unexplained terms such as SSOT, GUIDE §3.2, and 引擎二, which reduces readability and the clarity an agent needs.
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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented input schema, the description conveys the high-level input-to-output flow and names the output artifact. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the resulting nodes.json structure, what happens to input nodes, or how the classification labels are attached, leaving meaningful 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 input schema already documents all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds process context by explaining that the three boolean questions drive classification and that decomposition/executor mapping follows, but it provides no field-level syntax or format details beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: it classifies nodes using the FDE three-question judgment, produces automation decisions, decomposes work units, maps executors, and writes results to nodes.json. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling FDE tools such as fde_interview or fde_deploy, relying instead on 'engine two' jargon, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, ordering in the FDE pipeline, or conditions that would make another sibling tool more appropriate. The 'engine two' reference is too vague to help an agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.