Classify (choice)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so reasonably by stating the operation returns 'the winning option, per-option probabilities, and a confidence' and the 'exactly one' output constraint. It does not discuss edge cases or failure modes, but for a single-label classification tool the core behavior is disclosed.

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 only two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the most important behavioral fact, 'Pick exactly one...,' then gives return value and use cases. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description usefully explains what is returned and the scope of the decision. All three parameters are already fully described in the schema, and the description covers the primary use cases. It could be slightly more complete with error/tie-handling details, but is adequate for selecting and calling the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by constraining options to 'up to 255 labelled options,' a limit not present in the schema, and by framing options as a single-choice decision rather than a free-form output.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Pick exactly one of up to 255 labelled options for the given state.' It clearly distinguishes this classification tool from likely siblings like scoring or checking by emphasizing single-choice selection and explicitly listing use cases: routing, categorization, intent detection.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use for routing, categorization, intent detection.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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