classify_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining observable behavior. It does disclose the return shape ('{verdict, evidence, signals}') and the 'unknown' verdict class, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what inputs are required semantically, or any failure behavior, so the gap remains non-trivial.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds a compact return signature. It earns its two sentences without padding, though it is perhaps too sparse to fully serve the 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must be more complete to support correct invocation. It gives the return shape and verdict options but omits parameter semantics, usage conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. For a classification tool with three unannotated parameters, this is a clear completeness gap.

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 define the three parameters. 'Base' and 'head' are only inferably commit refs from the 'change' wording, and 'repo' is not described at all. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.

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') and a specific resource ('a change'), and clearly states the output categories (bugfix vs feature) with evidence. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_intent or analyze, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is that it classifies changes, which is weak because several sibling tools also analyze changes.

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