inspect_class

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Inspects' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state whether it is non-mutating, nor does it mention preconditions (e.g., a loaded project), return format, or potential side effects. The description adds only the list of inspected components, providing minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the exact scope of inspection. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable outline of what is inspected, but it omits crucial context such as when to use the tool, whether it requires a loaded project, or what the return structure looks like. This leaves the agent with some ambiguity, though the simple nature of the tool mitigates the impact.

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 fully documents both parameters with descriptions ('Name or path of the loaded project' and 'Class name'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, which aligns with the baseline expectation that the schema is sufficient.

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 the specific verb 'Inspects' and identifies the resource as 'a class', then enumerates the class components (decorators, extends/implements, fields, methods, constructor). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like inspect_function or get_type_hierarchy, which focus on other aspects.

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 implicitly suggests usage when one needs to inspect class-level details, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternative tools such as get_type_hierarchy or list_ts_types. The absence of any exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations leaves the decision to the agent's inference.

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