List All Classifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds transparency by stating it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata and that pagination is controlled via page and per_page. This goes beyond annotations, though no further behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits) are mentioned.

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 four sentences, each serving a purpose: first states the core function, second provides usage guidance, third describes pagination behavior, and fourth lists the required parameter and API endpoint. No fluff or redundancy, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a paginated list GET endpoint), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, pagination, required parameter, and return format. No output schema exists, so a brief note on returned fields would improve completeness, but the description mentions 'details' and 'pagination metadata,' making it adequate for a list tool.

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% with parameter descriptions already present. The description adds value by explicitly stating that page and per_page control pagination and that project_id is required. It also mentions the response includes pagination metadata, which is not in the schema. This provides operational context beyond the schema details.

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 a list of all classifications for a specified project, with the verb 'Return a list' and the resource 'classifications'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_classification' and 'list_all_classification' by specifying the project scope and paginated overview usage.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to enumerate Company Settings when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters,' providing clear usage scenarios. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear and no alternatives are mentioned. A slight deduction for lack of exclusion guidance.

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