trw_surface_classify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (dict with classification, surfaces, rationale) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor mention any side effects or authorization needs.

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 very concise: two sentences for purpose and usage, plus a clear return format. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple classification tool with one parameter, the description covers the return format but lacks clarity on the input path and any prerequisites. It is adequate but not fully complete given the missing parameter details.

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 single parameter 'path' lacks description in the schema (0% coverage). The description only mentions 'candidate path' in the context of usage but does not define what the path represents (file path, URL, etc.), leaving ambiguity.

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 'Classify a meta-tune surface as control vs advisory,' providing a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like trw_surface_diff, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 includes a concrete use case: 'Use when you need to know whether a candidate path is governed by the SAFE-001 control surface registry before promoting a meta-tune proposal.' However, it lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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