Classification item details

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive semantics, so the description's job is to add behavior it alone can supply. It does: it discloses the return payload shape and, notably, that individual entries can come back as {input, error}, i.e. partial-failure semantics that the schema and annotations do not express.

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?

Two compact sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the output spec. The dense inline output shape is justified because no output schema exists, and nothing extraneous is present.

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?

With no output schema available, documenting the return object here is the right call, and the description covers identifier forms plus the error variant. Minor gaps remain around what system restricts and includeChildren defaults, but those are in the schema.

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 67%, so the schema already documents the GUID/id/path input forms and the system/includeChildren params. The description restates the three identifier forms but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, which makes a baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the id, name, description, path, parent and children of classification items. That is clearly distinguishable from browsing tools like get_classification_tree, though the description never names a sibling to route against explicitly.

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 phrase 'by GUID, id or path' implies the caller already holds an identifier, which is a usable consumption signal, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or named alternative in the description body (the get_classification_tree pointer lives in the schema, not here).

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