efm_get_agent_class

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. Its language ('Detail', 'resolve') signals a read-only retrieval, and it lists observable outputs, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether any permissions are needed, or what it returns in error/edge cases. That makes it serviceable but not fully transparent.

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 brief and front-loaded, leading with the resource and key result fields. The ancestry 'Start here to resolve a class to its manifest' is a helpful single-sentence directive with no wasted prose.

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 one-parameter get tool with an output schema, the description provides enough working context: the tool targets a single agent class, shows manifest/monitoring/flow details, and is described as the starting point for manifest resolution. The main gap is the agent_class value semantics, but that is mitigated by its simple single-parameter shape.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only says 'one agent class' without explaining how to form or source the agent_class string. The agent can infer it is an identifier or class name, but the definition adds almost no value beyond the schema's own parameter name.

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-plus-resource ('Detail for one agent class') and enumerates the returned areas: manifest ids, monitoring config, and Designer flow association. It does not explicitly compare itself to a sibling like efm_get_class_monitor or efm_get_manifest, but the resource scope is clear enough to establish a distinct purpose.

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 phrase 'Start here to resolve a class to its manifest' gives a clear workflow directive and tells the agent when this tool is the entry point. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when to choose them instead, but it offers a clear use case without exclusions.

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