classComponents

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 states 'List class components', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, pagination behavior, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond basic listing.

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 extremely concise with 'List class components', a single phrase that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's intent in minimal space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data about class components. It doesn't explain what 'components' entail, the return format, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter documented as 'The URL of the class'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 'List class components' clearly states the action (list) and resource (class components), but it's vague about what 'class components' specifically refers to (e.g., methods, attributes, interfaces). It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'classIncludes' or 'objectStructure', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to classes and objects (e.g., 'classIncludes', 'findDefinition', 'objectStructure'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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