get_class_hierarchy

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

The description discloses the output format (Mermaid class diagram) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description should explicitly state safety traits (e.g., no-modification).

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 concise with Args and Returns sections, but is written in Turkish. For an English-based AI, this may reduce clarity slightly. However, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 description covers input parameters and output format (Mermaid diagram). Since an output schema exists, the description need not detail return structure. Missing are usage context and side-effect disclosure, but overall it is adequate for a simple tool.

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 description provides clear explanations for both parameters: path (project root) and class_name (specific class or all), including default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which lacks descriptions (schema_description_coverage 0%).

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 returns the class inheritance hierarchy using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('class inheritance hierarchy'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_call_graph or generate_architecture_diagram.

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 implies the tool is used for obtaining class hierarchy but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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