Get All Classes

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

No annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'pagination support' without explaining what pagination means in practice (e.g., whether count=0 means 'all', or what happens at the end of the list). It says nothing about ordering, permissions, or scale of the result set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though efficiency here comes partly from omission rather than precise scoping.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation isn't required. But for a tool with two opaque pagination parameters and a sibling keyword-search tool, the definition leaves too much to guesswork about how to call it correctly and when.

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%, with two integer parameters (count, offset) that are undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'pagination support' implies their role but does not define units, defaults (count=0, offset=0), or how a zero count is interpreted.

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 clear verb and resource: returns all classes in the project, with pagination. It does not differentiate from the sibling search_classes_by_keyword, which is the most likely alternative for retrieving classes.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description doesn't mention the keyword-search sibling or any condition under which an agent should prefer that tool over an unfiltered list.

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