find_classes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the exact scope (engine classes AND project's own types, including GDScript class_name and C# [GlobalClass]) and explaining the 'base' parameter's behavior. This is useful behavioral context not present in structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope and parameter detail, ending with a usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple search tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, scope, and even the recommended next step (describe_class). It's sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% for all three parameters, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds semantic value by giving a concrete example for 'base' (base=Node2D) and explaining that the search covers both engine and user-defined types, which clarifies the meaning of 'query' beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Search classes by name substring". It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting it covers engine classes AND project types, and positions itself as "The discovery entry point", setting it apart from tools like describe_class or find_nodes.

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 gives explicit usage context: "The discovery entry point — pair with describe_class." This tells the agent when to use this tool and what to follow it with. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives to avoid, but the pairing guidance is clear enough for a search tool.

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