classify_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses the invariant behavior: always returns GATED, no fail-open, no configurable argument. This is exceptionally transparent and removes any guesswork about the tool's behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 tool is inherently simple, and the description covers behavior, usage, and alternatives. It addresses potential confusion about registration and provides a clear reference to the sibling tool. Nothing significant 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?

The single parameter action_type is implicitly explained as the identifier for the action. The description states that no argument can change the result, clarifying the parameter's role is nominal. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool performs default-deny classification for an action_type and always returns GATED. It distinguishes itself from is_action_registered by explicitly noting that registration status does not affect the result.

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 explicit usage guidance: use this tool for enforcement classification (always GATED), and use is_action_registered for informational checks about registration. This effectively directs the agent to the appropriate sibling tool.

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