msio_classify_job

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral caveats: the classification is regex-based rather than AI-based, and roughly 38.8% of jobs fall into a general catch-all category. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to set expectations.

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 compact, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details, usage guidance, and gotchas. Every sentence adds actionable information without redundancy.

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?

With one simple parameter, a clear output schema, read-only annotations, and explicit usage guidance, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly. It also exposes the key reliability caveat (regex-based, catch-all frequency), making the tool's limitations transparent.

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 only one parameter, job_id, with a clear title and required flag. The description reinforces that the tool operates on a job, and the parameter is self-explanatory as a job identifier. Although the description does not provide detailed format guidance, the single simple parameter makes that unnecessary.

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 and resource ('Classify a job into one of 13 plumbing service categories'), which precisely states what the tool does. It also differentiates from nearby siblings by naming hcp_get_job and hcp_list_jobs as tools for different needs, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 explicitly provides USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN guidance, including concrete alternatives (hcp_get_job for job details, hcp_list_jobs for listing jobs). This gives an agent clear routing criteria without needing to infer intent.

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