get_tb_class_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the data source (compiled-source scan) but omits effects, return format, traversal order, depth semantics, and error behavior. The word 'Return' suggests a read operation, but safety and performance characteristics are not stated.

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, both essential, with the primary operation first and the parameter behavior second. It earns conciseness but could use the saved space to explain remaining parameters.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must describe return values, parameter semantics, and usage context. It covers only root_class and leaves handle, depth, and return structure unaddressed, making it insufficient for confident invocation.

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 must compensate. It explains root_class meaning and empty behavior, but handle (required) and depth are left completely unexplained.

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 'Return' and a specific resource 'UVM/class inheritance tree' from 'compiled-source scan results'. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_tb_subtree or build_tb_hierarchy.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over get_tb_subtree, build_tb_hierarchy, or other hierarchy-related tools. The only usage hint is how to use root_class, which is parameter-level instruction, not tool-selection guidance.

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