asc_list_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation lists descriptors and supports optional filtering, but it does not disclose behavior around pagination, filtering semantics, required APK context, or any operational caveats beyond the bare verb 'List'.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and key optional filtering capability. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 five parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. The presence of an output schema lessens the need to explain return values, but the description still fails to cover the required apk_path argument and pagination/concurrency parameters, leaving significant 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'prefix' filtering concept, but it does not clarify the required 'apk_path', nor does it mention the meaning or role of 'limit', 'offset', or 'threads'. An agent is left without parameter-level guidance.

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 starts with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('class descriptors'), and immediately notes optional filtering by package or class prefix. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like asc_get_class_source (source code) and asc_find_refs (reference searching).

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description implies usefulness for enumerating classes but does not state how it relates to siblings like asc_get_class_source or asc_find_refs.

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