get_class_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation (get public members) but does not reveal whether the tool is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors (e.g., invalid class name), or any rate limits or side effects.

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 extremely concise at two lines, front-loading the core purpose. The separate 'Args' block is clear and minimal. Every sentence adds value, with no 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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential information. It does not, however, mention error handling or assumptions about class existence. This is a minor gap but overall sufficient for an experienced developer or agent.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter class_name, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief description and examples (e.g., AActor, ACharacter), which add value beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain naming conventions, case sensitivity, or the effect of invalid inputs. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all public members of an Unreal Engine class,' making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. The provided examples (e.g., AActor) and the distinction from sibling tools (deprecation, function signature, etc.) further reinforce uniqueness.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_unreal_api or get_function_signature. It does not provide context, exclusions, or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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