classComponents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reads from class metadata rather than source ('read from the class rather than from its source') and characterizes the operation as 'cheap', implying lightweight execution. It doesn't divulge error behavior, but given annotation coverage, this is solid.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative guidance is placed in the second sentence without clutter. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned, the lightweight nature, and how to get the actual source. No critical gap remains.

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 for the single 'url' parameter ('The URL of the class'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter or its format, so it rests at the baseline of 3.

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 ('read') and resource ('class') and enumerates the exact contents returned: methods with visibility, attributes, types, and interfaces. It explicitly distinguishes itself from source-reading tools like getObjectSource and fragmentMappings, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'the cheap answer to what can this class do', and directs to alternatives for source retrieval ('fragmentMappings or read whole with getObjectSource'). This is concrete, actionable routing.

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