get_classification_schema

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

The description states it 'returns' data, implying a read operation, but with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly declare read-only or non-destructive behavior. It adds some context about the returned content but lacks details on auth requirements, performance characteristics, or potential side effects. The name itself already suggests a getter, so the description provides limited behavioral transparency beyond the name.

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 a single sentence of 21 words, efficiently listing the schema components without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it quick 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately conveys the scope (complete schema definition) and key contents (memory types, storage tiers, thresholds, mapping tables). For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, this is sufficient to inform the agent about what to expect. It could be slightly more complete by noting that the response is a static definition, but overall well-rounded.

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%, as the single parameter 'format' has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any further meaning or context about the parameter, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'CarryMem's complete classification schema definition'. It enumerates the included components (7 memory types, 4 storage tiers, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools focused on classification actions or rule management.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like classify_message or get_memory_profile. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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