arthas_sc

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Search for loaded classes' without revealing important details such as whether the search is case-sensitive, supports wildcards, or any performance or side-effect implications. The agent is left uninformed about the tool's operational behavior beyond the schema.

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 with a single sentence, which is efficient. However, it may be too brief, lacking structure or additional context that could be provided without significantly increasing length. Still, it avoids unnecessary content.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of class names, or full details if 'detailed' is true), nor does it provide usage hints or typical scenarios. The agent would need to rely on the schema alone, which is incomplete for effective decision-making.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already explains the parameters, the description does not need to repeat them, but it also does not enrich understanding (e.g., default timeout values, format of class pattern). Baseline is 3, and no extra value is added.

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 'Search' and the resource 'loaded classes', making the primary action understandable. However, there is no explicit differentiation from sibling tools like arthas_sm (search method) or arthas_jad, but the name 'arthas_sc' itself hints at 'search class', and the schema's required classPattern parameter clarifies the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. The description does not mention when it is appropriate to use 'arthas_sc' instead of other search-related tools such as arthas_sm or arthas_jad, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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