classify_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two real traits: input must be UTF-8 text and the read is size-capped. It does not state the actual size limit, what happens on non-UTF-8 or oversized files, or any error/permission behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a file-reading operation.

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 tight sentence with no waste and the key constraint (file input) is front-loaded. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, since essential details are simply absent.

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 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits parameter meaning, the size cap value, error behavior, and how results relate to the sibling 'classify' output.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It hints at 'path' (local file) but says nothing about 'labels' (required) or 'hint', leaving the agent to guess at their meaning from names alone.

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 states a clear purpose by anchoring to the sibling 'classify' and adding the file-based variant: it classifies UTF-8 text read from a local file. This distinguishes it from the plain 'classify' tool, though the verb itself is only implied via the name rather than stated.

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?

Saying 'Like classify, reading UTF-8 text from a local file' implicitly tells the agent to use this when input is a file rather than inline text. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never mentions the other file siblings (extract_file, summarize_file) as alternatives.

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