get-classification

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it fails to provide any. It does not state default behavior (e.g., whether non-deleted is the default for include), permissions required, error handling, or what 'details' entails. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'details' includes, the default value for include, or the response format. For a tool with three parameters, more context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 schema already describes two parameters (name and fields) and provides an enum for include without description. The description adds no additional meaning or examples beyond what is in the schema. With 67% coverage, the tool relies on the schema, but the description misses an opportunity to clarify, e.g., the format of fields or the effect of include.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'classification details' with the primary filter 'by name'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list-classifications (which lists all) and other get-* tools by specifying the resource. However, 'details' is somewhat generic, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that list-classifications should be used for retrieving multiple classifications, or when to use the include parameter to filter deleted ones. The agent is left without context for proper selection.

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