fgd_class

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context about inheritance resolution and spawnflag processing, which is beyond a basic lookup. It does not mention output format, errors, or side effects, but the read-only intent is reasonably clear.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the inheritance-resolution detail economy.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool, the description is mostly adequate but leaves the return value phrased only as 'full definition,' which is vague without an output schema. Some guidance on what the agent should expect in the result would strengthen completeness.

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 already documents fgd_path, and classname is left undocumented. The description references the class concept but does not specifically explain the classname parameter or how it relates to the returned definition. The parameter name is self-explanatory enough to be minimally adequate.

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 identifies the resource as 'one FGD entity class' and distinguishes it from the plural fgd_classes sibling by emphasizing a single class. It communicates the output is a full definition, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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 phrase 'with inherited properties and spawnflags resolved from its base classes' implies this tool is needed when a fully resolved class definition is required, as opposed to a simple listing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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