get_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains what the tool returns but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or performance traits. The tool is inherently read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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, with a brief front-loaded statement of purpose followed by a clear Arguments block. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on input parameters and overall purpose. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or performance, which would be helpful given no annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value: it provides concrete examples for class_name, explains file_path as an optional scope prefix, and clarifies include_tests defaults. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 returns a complete reference card of a class's public members, including methods, properties, fields, and events. It distinguishes from siblings like get_signature (which likely targets a single member) by emphasizing the full class overview.

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 mentions it 'replaces reading the entire source file,' implying a use case for quick class overview, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_signature or specify when not to use this tool.

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