Check Ssot Links

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it performs classification and recommendation, consistent with read-only. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, permissions) are disclosed, so transparency is adequate but not enhanced.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, for a tool with no output schema and minimal parameter info, slightly more detail could improve usability without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the simple input (one array parameter) and read-only annotations, the description lacks the output behavior, making the tool's full usage unclear. Without output schema or mention of return value, the agent cannot know how to use the classification result for routing.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'paths' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what values are expected, their format, or constraints. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but here a parameter exists and the description fails to compensate, providing no semantics beyond the schema.

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' and 'recommend' with the resource 'symlinked SSOT paths', giving a specific function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'validate' tools by focusing on classification and routing. However, 'SSOT' and 'safe edit routing' are domain-specific and could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as 'route_control_destination' or 'validate_project_adapter'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or alternatives.

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