pharo-nc-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a class definition but does not specify what that includes (e.g., methods, variables, inheritance), whether it requires specific permissions, or how errors are handled (e.g., if the class doesn't exist). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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, using a brief purpose statement followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function and parameters without unnecessary details.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the 'class definition' includes would improve completeness for effective agent use.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'class_name' is 'The name of the class to get the definition for,' clarifying the parameter's purpose. However, it does not provide details like format examples or constraints, so it partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions but not fully.

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 purpose: 'Get the definition of a Pharo class.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('definition of a Pharo class'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_class_comment' or 'get_method_source', which might retrieve related but different information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_class_comment' (for comments) or 'get_method_source' (for method code), leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

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