find_large_classes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the return envelope (totalCount, truncated, limit), sorting order, and default limit. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits such as performance impact, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first defines the tool's action, the second explains the output format. No redundant words or irrelevant details.

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?

The description covers the return envelope and sorting, but lacks details on what happens when thresholds are not exceeded (empty results), whether results are paginated beyond limits, or how multiple thresholds interact. Given no output schema and moderate complexity, it is somewhat incomplete.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context: it clarifies the default limit (100, despite schema default null) and the sorting behavior (worst-first). This adds value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 'Find' and the resource 'classes and structs', specifies the criteria (member count or line count thresholds), and describes the output sorting (worst-first) and envelope structure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_god_objects which focus on different metrics.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like find_god_objects. The description only explains the tool's own behavior without mentioning exclusions or preferred use cases.

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