classify_character

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses what the tool returns: classification Type A/B/C/D, anatomical divergences, and recommended skeleton structure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, but the classification framing strongly implies it.

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 tight sentences: purpose, input guidance with examples, and output disclosure. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 has one parameter and a present output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It is nearly complete, but a brief note about when this classification should be invoked relative to skeleton blueprinting would improve contextual completeness.

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%, so the description must explain the sole parameter. It does so by saying to provide a description of the character and gives several examples, which adds useful meaning beyond the bare string schema. It could still specify constraints on description length or detail, but the core semantics are covered.

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 and resource: 'Classify a character's body type for physics skeleton construction.' It also gives concrete example inputs and names the exact outputs, making the tool's scope unambiguous relative to general skeleton or rig tools.

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 the tool should be used before skeleton construction by saying it is for physics skeleton construction, and it instructs the agent to provide a character description. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_skeleton_blueprint or get_body_kun_library.

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