Diagnose render error

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only implying a classification output. It does not describe the nature of the classification or any further details, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

One sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the action. The description is efficiently written and easy to parse.

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 does not explain what the classification result looks like or what categories are used. The ambiguity of 'local' and lack of examples make the tool under-specified.

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 single parameter errorText is self-descriptive, and the description's mention of 'local validation or render error' loosely connects to the input. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description should more explicitly clarify what type of input is expected (e.g., raw error text, stack trace).

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 'classify' and identifies the resource as 'local validation or render error', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like validate_workflow or inspect_workflow. It states the tool's primary function without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or situations where other tools like validate_workflow might be more appropriate.

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