List OCSF event classes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'all' classes and their descriptions for a specified version, which clarifies the scope but does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination or error handling. This is adequate but not rich, consistent with the annotation coverage.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the core function, and uses a bulleted list for usage guidance. It avoids redundancy and every sentence contributes value, including the pointer to `ocsf_get_class`. This is a model of concise, structured tool documentation.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema). The description covers the action, the use context, and the next step, making it complete for effective selection and invocation. No gaps are apparent.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for this single parameter, including a clear example ('1.6.0'). The description mentions 'specific schema version' but does not add further parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool 'Get all OCSF event classes and their descriptions for a specific schema version,' identifying the specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `ocsf_get_class` by noting that the latter is for complete schema details, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit use cases ('before creating a mapping', 'identify which class best matches your log data', 'understand the purpose and scope') and explicitly directs the user to the alternative tool `ocsf_get_class` once a candidate is found. This clearly communicates when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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