list_classes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return type (FQNs), parameter effects, and default limit. Lacks mention of error handling or authentication, but adequate for a read operation.

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?

Extremely concise, using docstring format with Args. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

Covers parameters, return value, and default behavior. With output schema present, lack of return value detail is acceptable. Could mention the concept of 'string table' explicitly, but sufficient for context given sibling tools.

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%, so description fully compensates. Each parameter (metadata_path required, namespace with filter behavior, limit with default) is described clearly with purpose and behavior.

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 tool returns class FQNs from the string table, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like get_assembly_types which likely handles assembly types.

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 explains parameter usage (e.g., namespace filters by prefix, limit caps results) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_assembly_types or get_type_definitions.

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