browse_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose basic behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, or any side effects. The description implies a read-only browse operation but does not state it explicitly.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates capabilities concisely. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool has no output schema and optional parameters, the description covers the main use cases. It could clarify the interaction between parameters (e.g., class_name and multiclass are likely mutually exclusive), but the current level of detail is sufficient for straightforward browsing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., 'view a specific class's features' for class_name, 'filter features to this level or below' for level) but does not significantly expand on the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool browses D&D 5e SRD classes and lists its capabilities: list all classes, view features by level, calculate multiclass combos. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browse_races and search_spells by focusing specifically on classes.

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 outlines when to use the tool (browsing classes, looking up features, multiclass calculations). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the sibling tool names provide context for alternatives.

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