beans_info

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses the most important trait — 'Read-only' — plus the data source (HAC application context), which hints that a running HAC/admin context is required. It says nothing about behavior when the bean does not exist, ambiguity resolution when multiple aliases match, or whether the call can be slow against a live context.

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?

Two short sentences with the safety profile front-loaded ('Read-only') followed by the resource and its source. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the resource and its source but leaves the meaning of the required 'name' input and the failure/ambiguity behavior unaddressed. It is workable but not complete enough for confident invocation on the first try.

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 0%, so the single parameter 'name' is documented nowhere. The description never clarifies whether 'name' means a bean ID, an alias, a fully qualified class name, or a partial match, which is exactly the gap the description should fill for this tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the Spring bean implementation and its aliases, read from the HAC application context. That is far more informative than the bare name 'beans_info'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings such as type_info or config_get, which also inspect runtime/configuration state.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to pick instead (e.g. type_info for class metadata vs beans_info for bean lookups). The only usage signal is the implied 'look up a bean by name', which the agent must infer.

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