classify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the player parameter is conditionally required for boardState dicts and describes the return format (dict with name and numeric code). This goes beyond a minimal description and gives useful behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args and Returns section. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the list of classifications is directly useful. No wasted words.

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 description gives a complete picture of the tool's input requirements, output structure, and possible classification values. It does not dwell on edge cases or invalid inputs, but for a straightforward classification tool with an output schema, this is sufficient completeness.

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 compensates well. It explains board_input as 'Board in any supported format' and player as 'Who is on roll' with the condition for when it's required. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though the term 'supported format' could be more explicit.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Classify a board position') and resource (GNUBG's position types), listing the exact classification categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like probabilities or best_move, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by explaining its function and listing the classification outputs. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the purpose is self-evident enough to guide selection.

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