java_class_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the fuzzy-search behavior, the reliance on indexed data, and the list return type, which is adequate for a simple read-style search tool.

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 two brief sentences with no filler. The main action ('search Java classes') is front-loaded, followed by matching behavior and return type.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description explains enough to call it correctly: what is searched, how matching works, and that a list of classes is returned. It omits optional response formatting details like pagination or ordering, but these are minor for this simple tool.

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 schema already defines 'keyword' with coverage at 100%, but the description adds that the keyword is used for fuzzy matching over indexed class names, providing meaningful semantic context beyond the schema.

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 specifies a search operation over Java classes, stating it fuzzy-matches indexed class names and returns a list of matches. It is obviously distinct from the siblings (indexer/analyzer) in action, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to find Java classes by keyword, and it implies the prerequisite that classes must already be indexed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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