get_class_reference

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of what comes back (all public methods, properties, fields, events), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about failure modes (class not found), namespace ambiguity resolution, or output size for very large classes.

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 purpose and usage sentence are front-loaded and waste no words. The Args block restates the parameter name but adds real format guidance and examples, so it earns its place reasonably well, though the structure is slightly boilerplate.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the single required parameter is well covered. For a simple read-only lookup this is close to complete; only edge-case behavior (missing class, ambiguous namespace) is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies that class_name accepts a name with or without a namespace and gives four concrete examples (Rigidbody, Tilemap, InputAction, SceneManager). That is meaningfully more than the schema's bare 'string' type.

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 and resource ('Get a complete reference card for a Unity class') and enumerates the returned members (public methods, properties, fields, events), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_method_signature or search_unity_api, which keeps it from a 5.

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 use — 'Use this when you want to see everything available on a class at a glance' — which implicitly separates it from the narrower get_method_signature. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives are provided, so it falls short of a 5.

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