classify_ai_system

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what the tool returns ('risk tier, Annex III category, binding Articles, grounded verbatim in the law') and implies a read-only operation with no side effects. This is transparent and consistent.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and outputs, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure and the required parameter. It covers the classification use case completely, and the optional parameters (language, full) are self-explanatory from the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all three parameters (description, language, full). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's verb (classify), the specific resource (AI system under the EU AI Act), and the return values (risk tier, Annex III category, binding Articles). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_compliance_deadlines by focusing on classification.

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 second sentence provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'whenever a user asks whether an AI system is high-risk, prohibited, what obligations apply, or which Articles bind.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but the positive cases are well defined.

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