classify_tools

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

The description discloses a notable behavioral trait: trying the LLM classifier first with deterministic fallback. However, with no annotations, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing tiers, permission needs) or whether the operation is reversible, leaving gaps in transparency.

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?

Two sentences concisely cover purpose, usage, and algorithm without redundancy. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what, when, and how. It doesn't explicitly state return values or confirm it modifies existing tiers, but 'assign' implies the effect, making it adequate for the simplicity.

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% with serverId described as 'ID of a server already registered with NitroWatch.' The description only reinforces 'registered server' without adding new semantic details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it assigns risk tiers (read/reversible/irreversible) to every tool on a registered server, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like set_tier by indicating a bulk, automated classification, and references a distinct workflow step after discover_capabilities.

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?

Explicitly instructs to run after discover_capabilities, providing clear workflow context. It implies a prerequisite (registered server) consistent with the schema, but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives beyond the implied ordering.

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