classify_license_string

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is advisory only and not legal advice, specifies the data sources, and clarifies that no tarball downloads occur — all useful traits for an agent deciding whether to trust or invoke this tool. It doesn't cover return format or failure modes, but for a simple classification tool this is strong disclosure.

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 with zero waste: the first delivers the core purpose and output categories, the second adds the advisory caveat and data-source constraints. All information is essential and front-loaded.

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 the input semantics, the classification logic, and important caveats (advisory only, no tarball downloads). The return format is not described, but for a classification tool returning a category label this is a minor gap; the description is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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 license parameter is already documented with examples (MIT, Apache-2.0, GPL-3.0). The description reinforces that it is a single license string but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (classify) with a clear resource (a single license string) and enumerates the exact output categories (permissive / copyleft / unknown / other). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly scoping to a single string, whereas scan_licenses and flag_risky_licenses imply bulk or risk-flagging workflows.

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 explains the data sources used (lockfile metadata, public npm registry license field) and a constraint (no tarball downloads), which helps an agent understand the operational context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over scan_licenses or flag_risky_licenses — the single-vs-bulk distinction is implied by the name but not spelled out.

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