vw_list_classes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that matching is case-insensitive, but says nothing about ordering, result size, or empty-result behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and filter behavior front-loaded and no filler. It errs slightly on the terse side for a tool with a nullable parameter, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and one optional parameter, the description covers the essential behavior. Only the parameter's name/default mapping and any result ordering are unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter, and it does add real meaning: matching is a case-insensitive substring rather than an exact or prefixed match. However it never names or maps the parameter or states the default (null = no filter), leaving a gap.

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?

States a specific verb 'list' and the resource 'class names' with the optional filter behavior, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like vw_list_layers or vw_list_symbols by resource alone. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from those siblings, but the resource is clear.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as a search or find tool. 'Optionally filtered' describes the parameter, not the context in which the tool should be selected.

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