runClass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Runs a class' gives minimal insight into what the tool actually does behaviorally—whether it executes code, triggers a process, returns results, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or handles errors. The description doesn't mention execution environment, output format, error conditions, or any runtime characteristics that would help an agent understand how to use it effectively.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this description suffers from severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single sentence doesn't front-load critical information or structure content for clarity. It's so minimal that it fails to communicate essential details, making the conciseness detrimental rather than helpful.

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 complexity implied by the sibling tools (development/execution environment), no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'running' entails, what results to expect, error handling, or any contextual information needed for proper tool selection and invocation in what appears to be a sophisticated development toolset.

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 0% description coverage, providing only a parameter name 'className' with no semantic context. The description 'Runs a class' doesn't add any meaningful information about this parameter—what constitutes a valid class name, format expectations, or how it influences execution. With one undocumented parameter and no compensation from the description, this leaves the agent guessing about proper usage.

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 'Runs a class' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'runClass' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't explain what 'running a class' means in this context, what type of class it refers to, or what the expected outcome is. While it includes a verb ('Runs') and resource ('class'), it lacks the detail needed to distinguish this tool from potential alternatives or understand its actual function.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 100+ sibling tools including various execution, testing, and analysis tools (like runQuery, unitTestRun, syntaxCheckCode), there's no indication of what makes 'runClass' distinct or appropriate for specific scenarios. The description fails to mention prerequisites, expected context, or any comparison to related tools.

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