oss_file_classify

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never states whether classification overwrites prior labels, is reversible, requires special permissions, or produces any side effects — all material for a mutation tool.

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 short front-loaded lines plus an Args block — no filler. The brevity is purposeful rather than lazy, though the Args block could have carried the two undocumented parameters at no structural cost.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 required parameters of which 2 are undocumented. The description leaves an agent unsure what paths accepts (single vs multiple, repo-relative?) and what project_id governs, which is a real gap for a fully-required-parameter write call.

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 0%, so description is the only documentation, and it covers only 2 of 4 parameters. It does add real value by enumerating the category values (doc/generated/vendored/secret/binary/asset/code/test), which the schema does not express as an enum, and clarifies that reason is mandatory justification text. project_id and paths are left entirely undefined.

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 verb and resource: '직접 분류' (directly classify) of '규칙으로 분류되지 않은(unclassified) 파일' — a clearly bounded scope. It does not name or contrast with sibling tools like oss_unknown_record/oss_unknown_update, so an agent must infer precedence among them.

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?

The phrase targeting 'files not classified by rules' implies the triggering condition (rule-based classification fell through), which is genuine usage guidance. But it names no alternative and gives no rule for when to prefer manual classification over recording an unknown.

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