List ClassDojo classes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Lists' is fully consistent with a read-only operation — no contradiction. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the result scope is tied to a locally connected teacher session. However, it adds nothing about output shape or formatting, so it does only modest work beyond the structured data.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and noun ('Lists the classes') and defers modifiers until after the main idea. Every element — the three-digit detail, the session scope — earns its place. This is exemplary economy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and safety. The only missing piece is the exact return format (what a 'three-digit class' looks like in the response), but with no output schema and such low complexity, that omission is minor and an agent can reasonably infer the result shape.

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 zero parameters, there is nothing for the schema to document and nothing the description must clarify about inputs. The rubric baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description still adds value by specifying the scope of the returned data (classes in the local session). This is appropriate; the dimension is effectively satisfied by the absence of parameters combined with the scope qualifier.

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 verb 'Lists' plus the resource 'classes' makes the core purpose unmistakable, and the 'three-digit' qualifier plus the scope phrase 'visible in the locally connected ClassDojo teacher session' sharpen exactly what is returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like classdojo_get_roster (students in a class) and classdojo_get_ui_state (interface state), though the description never names a sibling explicitly.

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 no when-to-use vs. alternative guidance and no exclusions. The phrase 'locally connected ClassDojo teacher session' implies a scope condition (use only when a local teacher session is active), but the agent is left to infer when to pick this over the sibling roster/import/verification tools. No alternative is named anywhere.

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