find_check_implementations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (checking implementations) but does not disclose return format, whether transitive implementations are included, or any limitations. While it is a read-only query, that is not explicitly stated. The description adds a bit of context beyond the name but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word is useful, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool is simple with 2 well-described parameters and no output schema. The description adequately communicates the core behavior: finding classes that implement/extend a given type. It is complete enough for its simplicity, though it does not elaborate on edge cases or return structure.

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 both parameters (name and type_name) having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Checks') and clearly defines the resource (classes implementing an interface or extending a base class). It explicitly mentions inheritance, which distinguishes it from siblings like find_unimplemented_interfaces (which looks for missing implementations) and get_type_hierarchy (which shows full hierarchy).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to know implementors of an interface or subclasses of a class), but it does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. No sibling tool is referenced, so the agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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