get_class_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output scope (methods, properties, inheritance chain, usages) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as performance implications, side effects, or authorization requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It mentions methods, properties, inheritance chain, and usages. However, it could hint at the detail parameter's effect, but the schema covers that.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters (class_name, detail, include_hints). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, defaulting to a baseline score of 3.

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 specifies the verb (get), resource (class context), and specific components (methods, properties, inheritance chain, usages). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_function_context and get_module_context by focusing on class-level context.

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 states when to use the tool: 'when you need to understand a class's interface and where it is used.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide comparisons with sibling tools like get_call_graph or get_subclasses.

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