classify_evidence_quality

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It only states the classification output; it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how missing booleans affect grading, or what 'infrastructure' checks are performed, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; it succinctly conveys the action, classification labels, and output range.

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?

The description includes the return grade and category labels, but lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral caveats. While the tool is moderately complex (nested evidence object, four parameters, no output schema), the description provides only a minimal functional definition.

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 description does not explain how method, evidence, has_issuer_signature, and has_principal_binding map to the quality categories or grade. Schema coverage is only 50%, so the description should compensate but does not clarify the boolean parameters' roles.

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 specifies the verb 'classify' and the resource 'attestation evidence quality', enumerates four quality categories, and states the output grade (0-3). This makes the tool's purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools like review_evidence or get_passport_grade.

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 is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives such as review_evidence or get_passport_grade, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the tool's clear purpose.

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