jev_classify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that confidence is distribution concentration not correctness, explains how order-ensemble flips concentrate at low confidence and are a reason to route to a person, and warns that the cost estimate may change. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that go far beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The first states purpose and exclusions, the second provides critical behavioral caveats, the third discloses a cost caveat. No fluff, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool has an output schema (so return values are covered) and a moderate parameter count. The description gives essential behavioral context but omits explanations for 'question' and 'add_other'. However, these are likely secondary options, and the core usage is clear. It is nearly complete for a classification tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains 'labels' (the closed list) and 'ensemble' (order-ensemble behavior), but leaves 'state', 'question', and 'add_other' unexplained. Some parameters are inferable from the tool name and purpose, but the description does not fully document them.

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 explicitly states the tool selects one label from a closed list and explicitly excludes text generation and numeric extraction, which distinguishes it from likely siblings. It is specific about the verb ('select') and resource ('one label from a closed list'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 description clearly states what the tool is for and what it is not for, giving a strong when-not guidance. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the exclusions (text generation, numeric extraction) imply when to avoid it. It also provides contextual guidance on interpreting confidence and ensemble behavior, which helps in deciding when to route to a person.

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