classIncludes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that URLs are returned for each include and explains the separation of test classes, which provides some behavioral context. It does not describe response format or other traits, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single run-on sentence that is grammatically awkward and hard to parse. It packs multiple ideas without clear structure, making it less concise and more confusing than it should be.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clearly specify the return format. It mentions URLs but does not indicate whether the result is a list, array, or object structure. It also lacks any prerequisites or additional context needed for correct usage, leaving the tool under-described for an agent.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter 'clas' with 'The class name', achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states that the tool returns the includes of a class (definitions, implementations, macros, test classes) with their URLs, which conveys the core purpose. However, it lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'list' or 'retrieve') and the phrasing is convoluted. It hints at a connection to revisions and getTextElements but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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?

It mentions that this is how test classes are read/written separately and that include names are used by revisions and getTextElements, giving some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit rather than prescriptive.

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