spider_classify_tier

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions that the tool reflects cost, privilege escalation, and order integrity path, which adds specific behavioral context. However, it does not clarify if the tool modifies data (though '분류' and '반환' suggest read-only) or provide details on side effects or security implications.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides value: purpose, when to use, and behavioral context. Excellent 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?

The description gives the core purpose and usage context but lacks details on the return format (model/verification key count) and does not fully explain how parameters like 'severity' influence behavior. Given the absence of output schema and annotations, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 only 50% (only 'area' has a description). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not explain the 'severity' parameter or elaborate on the usage of 'area'. This leaves the undocumented parameter unclear.

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 action: classifying findings into King/Mid/Baby spiders and returning model/verification counts. It also mentions the context of use (before dispatching modified spiders), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings, though the siblings have different purposes.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('수정 거미 급파 전 호출' - call before dispatching modified spiders). It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear and the sibling tools are distinct in function.

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