get_class_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation and mentions that a project path is needed to run Godot, but it does not discuss error handling, prerequisites, or what happens if the class name is invalid. This is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks full transparency.

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 a single sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is concise and contains no unnecessary information.

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?

The description is largely complete for a simple tool with two well-documented parameters. It mentions the return content (properties, methods, signals, constants), which helps the agent understand the output. However, without an output schema, the exact structure is not specified, but for this type of tool, it is sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3, and the explanation in the schema is sufficient.

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 action ('Get detailed info') and the resource ('any Godot class'), listing the specific components (properties, methods, signals, constants). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_properties and get_node_signals, which operate on node instances rather than class definitions.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve Godot class definitions), but it does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or compare with related siblings. Given the sibling set, the usage is fairly obvious, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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