classify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds only that execution happens 'with the local model' (useful for local-vs-remote decisions), but says nothing about permission requirements, whether a model must be pulled first, cost/latency expectations, what the response contains, or how multi_label interacts with a single-label default.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is efficient and appropriately sized for the core assertion. It is arguably under-specified rather than concise, but as pure prose structure it wastes nothing.

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?

A 15-parameter tool with a nested options object, no output schema, and no annotations needs more than one sentence to be safely invocable. The description omits the return shape, the local-model prerequisite, and any sibling routing, leaving significant gaps for an operation this complex.

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 73%, so most parameters (glob, path, text, multi_label, options, think) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond echoing the label output, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for a 15-parameter tool whose schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('classify'), the resource ('text/file content'), and the output form ('one or more labels'), plus the execution venue ('with the local model'). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings like extract, summarize, or decide, all of which also produce derived output from text.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no condition for choosing between inline text, a single path, multiple paths, or a glob, and no mention of alternatives such as extract or decide. Usage is only implied by the required 'labels' parameter, leaving the agent to infer routing from siblings.

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