classify_eu_ai_act_system

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

No annotations provided, but description reveals key behavior: the tool requires an optional extra and degrades to an install hint if missing. Also states it provides 'pinpoint citations'. Does not explain error handling for invalid input, but covers main behavioral aspects.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool's single parameter and presence of output schema, the description covers necessary context: both usage modes and installation requirement. No missing critical details.

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 has one parameter with 0% descriptive coverage; description fully compensates by explaining that empty string retrieves schema and non-empty JSON classifies. Adds clear semantics beyond raw type definition.

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 classifies an AI system's EU AI Act risk tier, with specific verb ('Classify') and resource ('EU AI Act risk tier'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on MiCAR regulation.

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?

Describes when to use (passing a SystemProfile JSON) and an alternative mode (empty string for schema). Mentions dependency on optional extra. No explicit exclusion of when not to use, but context is clear.

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