classify_clone_mode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one genuine contribution is enumerating the four decision outcomes, which matters because there is no output schema and this is the only place an agent learns what can come back. It says nothing about decision criteria, what triggers "blocked", or how license_text and source_signals shift the verdict.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the outcome set stated up front. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a policy decision tool.

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?

This is a five-parameter, nested-object policy classifier with no output schema and no annotations explaining outcomes, yet the description never explains the modes it returns or how inputs drive the decision. For a tool whose entire value is a judgment call involving licensing, an agent is left guessing at the criteria. It is not adequate for the complexity of the tool.

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%, so every parameter (candidates, license_text, site_profile, source_signals, exact_requested) is already documented in the schema, including cross-references to the sibling tools that produce them. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Decide whether a reference should be embedded, sourced, rebuilt, or blocked" names a specific decision verb and enumerates the four possible outcomes, which is far more informative than the bare name. It implicitly separates this classifier from action-oriented siblings like build_reproduction_bundle or generate_embed_snippet, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of where this sits relative to siblings such as inspect_url, discover_embed_candidates, or plan_reproduction_path. The only ordering hint comes from the schema text ("as returned by discover_embed_candidates", "returned by inspect_url"), not from the description itself.

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