gateway_privacy_classify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful trait beyond the annotation: the tool deliberately suppresses the source values it detects, a key privacy guarantee that prevents an agent from using it to extract PII. Output shape is not described, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and every phrase earning its place. The core action, resource, and the key behavioral constraint all fit 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description covers purpose and the key privacy behavior. The unexplained 'policy' parameter and the lack of routing to sibling privacy tools leave real gaps, though the default value means an agent can still invoke it successfully.

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% and the description says nothing about either parameter. 'text' is inferable from the tool's stated purpose, but 'policy' (default 'standard') is completely unexplained — no valid values, no meaning for 'standard', no hint of alternatives. The description fails to compensate for the uncovered schema.

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 ('classify') and resource ('sensitive text'), and adds a precise behavioral qualifier: it does not return detected source values. This distinguishes it from the sibling privacy tool gateway_privacy_sanitize_text without requiring the agent to open either schema. The statement is informative, not tautological.

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 'without returning detected source values' implies the tool is appropriate when an agent needs a sensitivity label but must not receive raw PII strings. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or routing to the related gateway_privacy_sanitize_text. The usage context is inferable but left to the agent.

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