classify_as_csap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only handles CID-10 and returns the CSAP group if applicable, and notes that CID-9 codes are handled elsewhere. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how invalid or malformed codes are handled, or any error/edge-case behavior. Given it's a classification tool, this is likely read-only, but the absence of explicit safety or error information leaves gaps.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence, while informative, is a bit long and includes a file path, but it still efficiently conveys the CID-9 exclusion. No wasted words, and the key message is clear without being verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return structure. It says 'Retorna o grupo CSAP correspondente se aplicável', which gives some idea but not the exact format (e.g., object with code and group, or just group). It also does not mention handling of empty arrays, invalid codes, or whether it accepts multiple codes (implied by 'um ou mais' but not detailed). For a simple tool it is adequate, but more detail on return structure would make it complete.

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% – the parameter cid_codes is clearly described as 'Códigos CID-10 para classificar (ex: [\'J18\', \'A09\', \'K35\'])'. The description adds the return behavior (group if applicable) and the CID-9 exclusion, but these are more about tool behavior than parameter meaning. It does not add extra syntax or format details beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (Classifica) and resource (códigos CID-10) and clearly defines the outcome (CSAP or not, with group if applicable). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_csap_groups and rank_csap_groups by focusing on individual code classification, and explicitly excludes CID-9 codes, leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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 description explicitly states when NOT to use this tool: for CID-9 codes from SIH 1992–1997, which are handled by a derived list. This gives clear exclusion criteria. It does not explicitly say 'use for CID-10' but that is implied by the exclusion and the tool's name, so usage context is clear, though it lacks explicit alternatives for CID-10 classification.

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