get_class_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and no side effects are suggested, which is appropriate for a simple getter. However, it does not disclose the output format, failure behavior (e.g., unknown class), or whether the hierarchy includes both ancestors and descendants, leaving some ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant wording or filler. It is immediately comprehensible and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should ideally clarify the return structure (e.g., list of parent classes, child classes, or both) and any project context requirements, which are currently unspecified.

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 adequately describes the sole parameter 'class_name' with a simple 'Name of the class' (100% coverage). The description adds context by specifying 'C++ class' and 'inheritance hierarchy', but it does not clarify expected naming conventions (e.g., full path, case sensitivity) or the precise meaning of 'hierarchy' in terms of output.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('inheritance hierarchy') for a specific target ('C++ class'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling query tools like 'find_class_usage' and 'inspect_blueprint' by focusing solely on class hierarchy.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. With several sibling tools that could also retrieve class-related information (e.g., 'find_class_usage', 'get_blueprint_functions'), explicit usage guidance is missing.

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