vpp_list_classes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Lista' implies a read-only operation and the with_members flag's effect is disclosed with real output examples, but nothing states permission requirements, whether the scan is recursive across the .vpp file, or anything about result size.

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?

Two tightly written sentences that front-load the resource list and follow with the only optional flag. Nothing is redundant, though the abrupt switch from Polish prose to the English parameter name and back is slightly jarring.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the with_members behavior is well covered. For a two-parameter tool the missing pieces are the meaning of the required path argument and the read-only/scope guarantees, which an agent still has to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does so well for with_members, spelling out the UML notation it triggers with concrete samples like '-email : String'. The required 'path' parameter, however, is never explained - it is unclear whether it points at a .vpp file, a directory, or a project selector.

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 names a specific verb (list) and enumerates the exact resource types returned: classes, abstract classes, interfaces and enumerations. That is enough to distinguish it from the singular vpp_get_class and from vpp_list_relationships, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It explains when to set with_members=true (to also get attributes, methods and enum values), which is genuine usage guidance for the parameter. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over vpp_get_class or vpp_list_relationships, so tool-selection context is only implied.

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