prc_classify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Read-only analysis, no side effects beyond state update,' which clarifies the safety profile and side-effect scope. It also lists return values (complexity domain, specialist list, cost budget, stages), adding behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements or failure behavior, so it's strong but not fully comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the critical precondition, and immediately states the core function. It efficiently packs purpose, usage, return values, and next step without redundancy. Every sentence contributes unique value.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it explains the framework, the activation action, the return data, and the follow-up action. It fully covers the tool's role in the pipeline and leaves no significant ambiguity for the agent.

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%, with project_path described as 'Absolute path to the project directory' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but doesn't go beyond the structured field information.

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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Classifies the product idea using Cynefin framework' and 'activates the appropriate subset of 20 research specialists.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying its role in the pipeline, including the precondition 'Call AFTER prc_start' and the checkpoint handoff to prc_gate.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: 'Call AFTER prc_start' and after success, 'call prc_gate with their decision.' This frames the tool as a required step between two sibling tools, offering clear sequencing and an explicit next action, which is strong usage guidance.

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