List classes

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, so the safety burden is covered by annotations. The description contributes only the shape of the payload (ascendancies plus starting attributes); it says nothing about filtering, ordering, or size of the result set.

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?

A single compact phrase with no padding, and the key content ('playable classes') leads. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 no-argument reference-list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description gives an adequate sketch of what comes back. Only the return format (structure, whether ascendancy data is nested) is left unspecified.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no semantics to explain and the schema fully describes the input. Baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 names a specific resource (playable classes) and enumerates the scope of what is returned (released ascendancies, starting attributes), which is clearer than a bare 'List classes'. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling, but none of the siblings overlap meaningfully with class/ascendancy reference data.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus siblings like evaluate_build, build_intake, or stat_priorities. Usage is only inferable from the name and the fact that it takes no parameters.

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