classify_severity

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: language auto-detection, use of different models for different languages, and the fact that Chinese descriptions only yield low/medium/high (no critical). This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence, followed by a compact bulleted list of model/language details, and a closing note on auto-detection. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 params, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, supported languages, model variants, label sets, and the auto-detection behavior. Return values are not described, but the output schema exists so that is not a gap.

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%, with both 'description' and 'language' clearly explained in the schema. The tool description does not add significant new meaning to the parameters; it only repeats the auto-detection note that is already in the language parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb+resource: "Classify the severity of a vulnerability based on its description." It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool classify_cwe by focusing on severity rather than CWE classification, and provides details about language-specific models.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to classify severity of vulnerability descriptions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose (e.g., classify_cwe), making the use case clear without naming them.

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