classify_license

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for transparency. It discloses the outputs (risk level and SPDX identifier) but does not explain underlying behavior, such as how the classification is determined, whether it requires network access, or how errors are handled. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about side effects or limitations.

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 a single, direct sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and output. No redundant or unnecessary information. It is optimally concise.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the core function but lacks details on return value structure or possible risk level values. While the output is summarized, an agent might need more specifics to interpret results correctly. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, including examples. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema is sufficient.

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 function: classifying a license string and returning risk level and SPDX identifier. It uses a specific verb (Classify) and resource (license string). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like find_copyleft, quick_check, or scan_licenses, leaving ambiguity about when to use this tool over alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the purpose statement.

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