classifier_method

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'runs the classifier' and 'attributes signals,' but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or what the return value looks like. This lack of behavioral information is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and usage. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Per-method classifier score') and provides necessary details without superfluous words.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and usage. However, it lacks behavioral details and does not describe the return value (e.g., score format), which would be helpful for such a tool. The description is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (method and country_code). The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the method slugs and country code format. Since the schema covers all parameters adequately, the description adds minimal value, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 that this tool runs a classifier specialized to one blocking method (dns-blocking, http-blocking, etc.) and is used to attribute country-day signals to a specific mechanism. The verb 'runs' and the resource 'classifier specialized to one blocking method' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like classifier_category or classifier_score.

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 clear usage context: 'Use to attribute a country-day signal to a specific mechanism.' It also lists the four valid method slugs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., for general classification), though the sibling list implies alternatives. The guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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