Classify Task

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context — it doesn't explain that classification is deterministic, cacheable, or how the workspace_id/workspace_generation rejection behavior works (though that's in schema). With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description should add more behavioral context like 'this is a lightweight classification call, doesn't persist state' but doesn't.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Perfectly concise for what it communicates.

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?

With 8 parameters (7 optional), 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential job. The output schema handles return-value documentation. Minor gap: doesn't mention that this is typically the first call in a workflow (a natural pre-cursor to other tools), but given the rich schema and annotations, this is adequate.

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% and each parameter is well-described in the schema. The description mentions the core input (user task) and the output concept. Given the coverage is complete, the description doesn't need to add much, and the small addition it makes (mode-specific tool policy output) is useful. Beyond baseline 3 because the schema parameters themselves are richly described.

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 verb (classify), the resource (user task into a CodexPro task mode), and the output (mode-specific tool policy / misuse guard guidance). It distinguishes from siblings like 'codexpro', 'read_rule_summary', and 'run_acceptance' reasonably well, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. Slight deduction for not naming specific sibling alternatives.

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?

Implied usage is to classify a task before running tools in the CodexPro pipeline. The description doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer it's the gatekeeper before code execution tools. Lacks explicit exclusions or 'use X instead' guidance.

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