classify_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains the semantics of the classification (what counts as heavy/static and why it matters for proxy bypass), but it does not say whether the check performs network I/O, whether it is side-effect free, or how the result is expressed (boolean vs. category).

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 sentence with the classification target front-loaded and parenthetical examples that earn their space by defining the term of art. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place that could explain the return value, and it does not (boolean? asset type? confidence?). The purpose and input side are complete, but the result side leaves an agent guessing.

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 100% for the single 'url' parameter, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no format, normalization, or scheme requirements beyond what the schema provides, which places it at the baseline for a fully documented parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('a URL'), then enumerates exactly what qualifies as a heavy static asset (image, font, video, stylesheet). This is concrete enough that an agent can tell instantly that classify_asset is a URL-content classifier rather than the routing, header, metric, or bandwidth tools in the sibling set.

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 'that can bypass residential proxies' implies the decision context in which this tool matters, but the description never states when to call it versus the alternatives or what the caller should do with the answer. Usage is inferred rather than prescribed.

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