find_classes

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it searches by name substring, includes both engine and project types, and supports a base-class filter. It doesn't discuss result format, but it signals that describe_class is needed for details, which further clarifies behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earns its place. Main action is front-loaded, the optional base parameter is explained with an example, and the intended pairing with describe_class is stated. No redundant information.

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 read-only search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and the follow-up workflow (pair with describe_class). It could specify the return type (e.g., list of class names), but the 'discovery entry point' phrasing makes that reasonably inferable.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'base' parameter with a concrete example (base=Node2D) and framing the query as matching both engine and project class names. That additional context justifies a 4.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('classes by name substring'), and explicitly scopes the search to engine classes plus project types. It also positions itself as 'The discovery entry point', distinguishing it from related tools like describe_class.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use it—as the discovery entry point—and names describe_class as the next step, giving an explicit workflow. It doesn't explicitly contrast with find_methods or search_files, but the class-specific scope and pairing instruction provide sufficient guidance.

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