classify_intent

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond nothing (no annotations) by noting that rule matches take priority and listing return fields. However, it does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or failure behavior, leaving the full burden unmet.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action and includes the key rule-priority constraint without any filler.

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 simple single-parameter classifier, the description covers the core behavior and outputs, especially with the output schema present. Missing usage guidance and edge-case behavior are notable but not critical.

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 schema has one parameter 'text' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter or its format. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though the parameter name is self-explanatory.

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 states the tool performs 'intent routing' and specifies the exact outputs: target MCP, allowed caller, slots, and confidence. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_permission, extract_slots, and check_safety_gate, which handle different concerns.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions; the rule-priority note is algorithmic, not usage context.

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