read_class_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While the name implies read-only, the description does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or lacks side effects, nor does it mention authentication needs or error handling.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating what the tool returns and when to use it. No unnecessary words.

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 explains the purpose and context (reading before modification) but does not describe the return format or clarify the relationship between .st and .h files for include_header. Given no output schema, more details on the response would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, such as additional context on parameter usage or examples.

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 tool returns the full source of a CLASS 2 class (.st file), specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like write_class_source (write) and inspect_project (general inspection) by focusing on reading method implementations and variable declarations.

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 advises using this tool before modifying a class, implying a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for other scenarios, such as writing or inspection.

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