list_class_affiliations

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

The description provides no behavioral context beyond what is already in annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). It does not mention pagination, ordering, or any limitations of the returned data.

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, short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could benefit from a brief statement about the parameter.

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 list operation with one required parameter and annotations providing safety context, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of output schema or any return value information reduces 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the parameter 'constituent_id', but it does not. The parameter is mentioned nowhere in the description, leaving its meaning and constraints implicit.

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 action (list) and resource (class affiliations) with the scope 'for a constituent', differentiating it from siblings like list_class_affiliation_types. However, it lacks an explicit 'all' qualifier, which would remove any ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_class_affiliation for a specific record. No mention of prerequisites or filtering options.

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