efm_list_agent_classes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a non-mutating enumeration ('List every'), specifies the response content (name, description, manifests), and adds domain context about what an agent class is. It does not mention pagination or output format, but the output schema covers the latter and the operation is inherently read-only.

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 short sentences: the first conveys the core operation and returned data, the second provides a useful conceptual definition. There is no filler or repetition, and all content earns its place.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the exact resource scope and returned fields, and it explains the concept of an agent class. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which is minor for such a low-complexity operation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description satisfies it.

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 ('List'), a precise resource ('every agent class EFM manages'), and the exact fields returned (name, description, agent manifests). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like efm_get_agent_class (single class) and efm_list_agents (agents rather than classes).

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 intended use is implied: call this to enumerate all agent classes rather than fetching one via efm_get_agent_class. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention exclusion cases, leaving some decision-making to inference.

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