hazard_taxonomy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that each class has a specific evidence standard and known failure modes, adding meaningful context beyond the tool name. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what the return object looks like, or any side effects. For a simple taxonomy lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

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: the first defines the content, the second explains why to read it. Both sentences earn their place, with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured 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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and use context. It doesn't enumerate the taxonomy contents, but the output schema is responsible for that. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist. No further explanation is needed.

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 identifies the resource as 'the hazard classes this system detects, with evidence bars and known failure modes,' establishing a clear topic. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list,' but the noun phrasing is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that list videos or alerts.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Read this before interpreting alerts.' This gives clear context that the tool is a precursor to alerts, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it. The context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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