determine_class

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

Despite no annotations, the description details the substring matching behavior, return format (up to 3 ClassMatch objects with score), and error handling (ToolError if no matches). It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but it is implied by the search operation.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, an important note in bold, and parameter documentation. While slightly lengthy, it earns its length by providing necessary instructions and example values.

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 has 2 required params and an output schema (not shown but referenced). The description covers input, behavior, prerequisite, return format, and error condition, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining 'root_class' with an example ('Document', 'Folder') and 'keywords' as up to 3 words from user input. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 verb 'find' and resource 'classes', with specific detail on substring matching in names and descriptions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on class search within a root class, a unique function among the listed tools.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to first call 'list_root_classes_tool' to get valid class names, providing a critical prerequisite. It also explains the parameters 'root_class' and 'keywords' with context on how to derive them from user input, guiding appropriate usage.

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