smell_detect_god_classes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the detection goal and does not explain whether the operation is read-only, what analysis is performed, what output format to expect, or whether there are side effects on the target directory.

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 with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to communicating the tool's purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits what the tool returns, what languages or project structures it supports, how the max_methods threshold is applied, and whether any side effects occur.

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 schema already documents directory and max_methods with descriptions, so full parameter meaning is mostly covered at 67% schema coverage. The description does not add new parameter details, though the SRP criterion loosely relates to max_methods. The api_key parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 identifies the verb ('Find'), the resource ('classes'), and the criterion ('too many responsibilities that violate the Single Responsibility Principle'). It is distinct enough from sibling smells like long methods or feature envy, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implied usage is clear: use this tool when you want to detect god classes in a project. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over smell_detect_long_methods or smell_detect_feature_envy, and no exclusions are stated.

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