list_huly_classes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's primary burden is providing behavioral context. It adds value by explaining the use case and the need for exact class IDs, but could elaborate on filtering behavior (e.g., returns all matching classes). Still, it's informative beyond annotations.

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 sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage context without extraneous words. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second provides practical guidance. No waste.

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 annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and when to use it. It could briefly mention the return format, but that is handled by the output schema. Overall, it's complete for this tool's complexity.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description mentions model class, interface, and mixin IDs, which relates to the 'kind' parameter, but does not provide additional semantics for each parameter beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states it discovers Huly model class, interface, and mixin IDs, specifying the exact resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_huly_attributes or list_huly_enums by focusing on class IDs, and the use case context reinforces its purpose.

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 explicitly tells when to use: 'before raw-object, generic association, custom field, or model-backed work when you need exact class IDs instead of guessing.' This is clear guidance. It lacks explicit alternatives but implies not using it if class IDs are not needed, which is sufficient.

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