script_class_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful behavioral details, such as summary lists being cut to 25 items plus a count and minimal mode returning only top-level scalars. Still, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are side effects, or how errors are handled, though the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 compact and information-dense, with the purpose front-loaded followed by concise parameter notes. Every line contributes meaningful content, and there is minimal verbosity. A small structural improvement would be separating the purpose statement from the parameter list more explicitly, but it remains highly readable.

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 simple three-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, all parameter semantics, output granularity, and response format options. The main gap is the absence of when-to-use/alternative guidance, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a severe omission.

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%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters inline: name, detail, and response_format. It explains allowed values, effective defaults, and behavioral effects, such as 'summary (long lists cut to 25 + count)' and 'yaml (default, token-cheap)'. This is exactly the semantic enrichment the schema lacks.

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 opens with 'Methods/properties/docstring for a td class', which clearly identifies both the resource (a TD class) and the kind of information returned. It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's core function. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like script_class_list or script_module_help, so a small differentiation gap remains.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as script_class_list or script_module_help. It implies use for retrieving class details, but it does not state exclusions or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer the right context.

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