vitest_classify_package

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only analysis but does not explicitly state side effects, prerequisites, or the exact form of the classification result. The listed tier categories are helpful but not a full behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The parenthetical list of tier categories adds useful specificity while keeping the description compact and front-loaded with the core action.

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 covers the purpose and gives example output categories, which is adequate for a simple one-parameter classifier. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent may still need to infer exact tier strings, return format, and any repository-side requirements.

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 100% for the single param, so the schema already documents packagePath as an absolute path. The description adds only the context that it refers to a repository package, matching the schema without adding meaningful new semantic detail.

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?

States a specific action ('Analyzes') and a specific resource ('a package in the repository'), and specifies the output ('Vitest migration tier') with concrete example categories. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vitest_scaffold_config or vitest_run_verification.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as vitest_scaffold_config or vitest_lookup_knowledge_bank. It never states whether classification should precede scaffolding, verification, or any other workflow step.

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