decision_classify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about side effects, determinism, permissions, or whether it mutates stored state. 'Internal' is the only behavioral hint and is ambiguous rather than informative.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but the parenthetical '(tier/risk/route/compliance)' is cryptic shorthand rather than an earned explanation. Brevity here reflects under-specification as much as efficiency.

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 two-parameter classification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs: the semantics of the required 'state' input, what 'questions' is for, and what the returned classification looks like. Only the output categories are named.

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 0%: 'state' (required, minLength 1) and the untyped 'questions' property are completely undocumented in the schema, and the description adds no meaning for either. An agent has no idea what to pass as 'state' or what shape 'questions' should take.

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 names a verb (classify) and a resource (decisions) and enumerates the classification dimensions it produces (tier/risk/route/compliance). However, it gives no indication of what a 'decision' is here or how it differs from siblings like decision_health or model_decision, so the agent cannot confidently route to it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as decision_health or model_decision. The word 'Internal' vaguely hints at a system-level call but does not tell the agent when this tool is appropriate.

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