get_class

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return content (user_id and assoc_id) and notes it's for viewing current state, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or any side effects (unlikely for a get). It adds moderate value beyond a bare fetch.

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 compact with a clear intro, a usage note, and a parameter definition. It's front-loaded and to the point, though the usage note could be integrated more smoothly.

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 get tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and use case adequately. It doesn't need to explain return values since output schema exists. Missing only minor behavioral details like pagination or error scenarios, which are irrelevant here.

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 single parameter section_id is explained as a class/section ID and imported from list_classes, compensating for the 0% schema coverage. This gives the agent clear sourcing guidance and prevents misuse.

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 fetches one class and its full staff list, specifying the resource and content. It distinguishes from siblings like list_classes (list all) and list_staff (global staff), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool before changing staff to see the current state, providing a concrete use case. It implies the section_id comes from list_classes, but doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives. Still, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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