mmar_get_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the class with its attributes, ports, and geometry, indicating a read operation. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., active session from mmar_login), error behavior for missing UUIDs, or any side effects. This is partially transparent 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 consists of two efficient sentences that immediately state the action, target, and return content. No redundant or vague wording; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what the tool does and what it returns (attributes, ports, geometry). It could mention expected prerequisites or error handling, but given the simplicity, it covers the essential context. A score of 4 reflects this slight gap.

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 has one parameter (uuid) with a clear description, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, mainly clarifying that the UUID refers to a class (node type). Thus, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('specific class (node type) by its UUID'). It also specifies the returned content ('attributes, ports, and geometry (VizRep)'), and the name/scope distinguishes it from sibling getters like mmar_get_relationclass or mmar_get_attribute_type.

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 clear context: use this when you have a class UUID and need full details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to understand when to use this tool versus listing classes for a scene type.

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