get_classes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'List classes' with fields, but fails to disclose truncation behavior, default sorting, performance implications, or any side effects. The schema provides parameter details, but the description lacks essential behavioral context.

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 brief (12 words) but includes output fields in parentheses. It is not overly verbose, but could be improved by front-loading key information like the tool's filtering capability. No structural issues.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return values and behavior. It only lists field names without format details, truncation markers, or hints about pagination. The presence of a `_truncated` marker is only in the schema description. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. It is baseline acceptable.

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 it lists classes with specific attributes (name, lines, methods, bases, file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_functions or find_symbol, but could be more precise about the scope (e.g., entire project).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer it over get_functions, find_symbol, or other listing tools, leaving the agent without context for decision making.

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