fgd_classes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It accurately conveys that this is a read-only listing operation and even describes the output contents. There are no hidden mutation or side effects disclosed or implied, so the behavior is transparent enough.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and follows with a practical use case. 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 low-complexity listing tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, what file to point it at, and when to use it. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both fgd_path and filter. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('entity classes defined in an FGD file'), and the returned fields ('name, type, description'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_entities or fgd_class, which deal with map entities or a single class.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to learn what entities a game supports.' This provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient.

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