classify_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose one significant trait: 'This tool never executes the route.' Yet it leaves the confidence-gating behavior unexplained—particularly what happens when confidence falls below the threshold—and omits side effects and response semantics, which matter for an advisory tool.

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 filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical behavioral caveat follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves key runtime behavior unexplained—most notably what happens when confidence is below the default 0.95 threshold and what the returned advisory route actually looks like. An agent would have to guess at the return shape and fallback behavior.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no per-parameter value and does not connect concepts like 'threshold' and 'errorCost' to the 'confidence-gated' behavior described.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('advisory, confidence-gated route for a bounded decision'), making the tool's advisory, non-executing purpose clear. With no sibling tools to differentiate from, it cannot distinguish itself from alternatives, but the core meaning is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a bounded decision' provides implied usage context, and 'never executes the route' hints it is for advice only. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions—though the absence of sibling tools lowers the need for alternative-routing.

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