list_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 discloses the 'one call' behavior and lists output fields (grades, teachers, room-parent counts), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. Since 'List' implies a read action, it's not misleading, but the description could be more explicit about safety and performance implications.

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 and well-structured. The first sentence establishes the purpose, the second highlights the one-call behavior, the third links to other tools, and the args list is minimal. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 list tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all inputs, explains the filters, and indicates the return includes section_id for chaining. It addresses potential pagination concerns with 'Returns every class in one call.' It doesn't detail the output schema, but that's fine since an output schema exists. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or large-data considerations, but overall sufficient.

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 fully explains each parameter: school_id is sourced from list_schools, name_contains is a case-insensitive substring filter, and grade is a case-insensitive filter with an example ('Kindergarten'). This provides clear semantics that the bare schema lacks, going beyond types and defaults.

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 operation: 'List a school's classes (sections) with grades, teachers, and room-parent counts.' It specifies the resource (classes), scope (a school), and output fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns every class in one call and identifies downstream tools that use the section_id, making it clear when to use this tool.

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 gives context: school_id comes from list_schools, and the result section_id is used with get_class, edit_class, etc. It also notes 'Returns every class in one call,' implying it's for comprehensive listing. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives like list_class_students for filtered/specific needs. The chaining guidance is useful but not a full usage comparison.

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