classify_runtime_error

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains what the tool produces, but does not mention whether it is side-effect-free, whether it can fail, or what happens with incomplete or unusual inputs. It is adequate for a simple classifier, but not detailed.

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 one efficient sentence that gets to the point and is appropriately sized for a simple classifier. It could add more detail, but it is not verbose and places the core action first.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description gives a high-level account of the result but omits details about how the inputs are used and what categories or recovery hints look like. It is minimally viable but has gaps around optional inputs and expected output variety.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the roles of 'message', 'stage', or 'exception_type'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the optional parameters' influence on classification output is left entirely to inference.

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' with a clear resource ('KOMPAS/COM runtime error' and a clear result ('stable code, category, and recovery hint'). This distinguishes it from CAD/geometry sibling tools and states the tool's unique transformation.

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 implies when the tool should be used: when a KOMPAS/COM runtime error needs to be classified into a stable code and recovery hint. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it with related tools such as normalize_operation_result.

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