runClass

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., state changes, resource consumption), or what the expected output might be. The phrase 'Runs a class' is too vague to infer any behavioral traits, resulting in a critical gap for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary elaboration. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, as it under-specifies the tool's functionality. While structurally efficient, it fails to provide adequate information, but per scoring rules, conciseness is rated independently based on size and structure, not content quality.

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 tool's complexity (implied by the action 'Runs'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address what the tool does, how to use it, what behavior to expect, or what results it returns. This inadequacy makes it insufficient for an AI agent to understand or invoke the tool correctly in any meaningful context.

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 description offers no information about parameters, while the input schema has 0% description coverage and documents only one parameter ('className') without context. This leaves the agent guessing about the parameter's purpose, format, or constraints (e.g., what a valid class name looks like). With low schema coverage and no compensatory details in the description, the parameter semantics are entirely undocumented.

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 a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'runClass' without adding meaningful specificity. It does not clarify what 'running' entails (e.g., executing code, starting a process, or testing) or what resource 'class' refers to (e.g., a programming class, educational course, or system component). While it includes a verb ('Runs') and resource ('class'), it lacks distinction from siblings like 'unitTestRun' or 'runQuery', making it vague and minimally informative.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools such as 'unitTestRun' or 'runQuery' that might serve similar purposes. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on appropriate application, leading to potential misuse or confusion.

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