get_schema_class

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds that results include the inheritance chain and direct subclasses, but says nothing about behavior when a class/enum is missing, name ambiguity across modules, or whether include_inherited changes output shape.

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 verb+resource and then usage contexts; no filler, no restating of the title.

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?

With an output schema and annotations present, the description only needs to add selection and input nuance, and it partly does. However, for a two-required-param lookup against multiple games and modules, it omits how to disambiguate same-named classes and what include_inherited does, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 75%: game, name (including the 'module:Name' form) and module are documented in-schema, while include_inherited has no description at all. The description's mention of the 'inheritance chain' hints at inherited-member behavior but never explains the include_inherited flag or the relationship between the name and module parameters.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get an engine schema class or enum') and enumerates the payload: fields, types, defaults, metadata, inheritance chain and subclasses. An agent can tell it is a single-item lookup rather than a listing, though it never names the nearest sibling list_schema_classes explicitly.

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 second sentence gives concrete use cases (networked fields, VData keys for Deadlock abilities, plugin offsets), which is real selection guidance rather than a generic 'use this to get a class'. It stops short of stating exclusions or pointing to list_schema_classes/search for discovery.

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