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 only states the action ('List') without detailing output format, pagination, error handling, or permissions required. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage, as it omits critical behavioral traits.

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, efficient phrase ('List class components') with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and clear, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve utility without sacrificing brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'class components' includes, how results are returned, or any behavioral context. For a tool with one required parameter and no structured support, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use.

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 100%, with the parameter 'url' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the URL format or constraints. Baseline score of 3 applies since the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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' states the action ('List') and resource ('class components'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'class components' entails (e.g., methods, attributes, interfaces) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'classIncludes' or 'objectStructure', making it vague in context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it requires a specific class type or how it differs from similar tools in the sibling list, leaving usage unclear.

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