Classify Face Sides

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Inspection only; returns no handle, mutates nothing.' It goes beyond annotations by explaining the seal_ports behavior and the meaning of 'interior' vs 'ambient', adding substantial behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose, context, side effects, parameter explanations, and output format are all covered without redundancy. The main goal is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes valuable 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description provides a detailed return structure (list of dicts with fields and types). It addresses the complex topology classification, mentions the interaction with annotate_face, and includes all necessary context. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 carries the full burden. It provides clear, meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'handle: the part' and 'seal_ports: cap declared inlet/outlet before classifying'. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'for every face, decide whether its outward side opens into an enclosed cavity (wetted) or ambient (exterior)'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from related siblings like annotate_face and list_face_roles by focusing on topology classification rather than role assignment. The reference to issue #19 adds concrete purpose.

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 effectively communicates when to use the tool (when answering the 'which faces are inside the airflow path' question) and even touches on interaction with annotate_face through seal_ports. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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