list_ci_classes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds valuable behavioral context: results are cached for 1 hour, and offset-based pagination may shift if classes are added or removed. This goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent about potential staleness and instability.

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 efficiently structured with a clear top-level purpose, followed by brief usage guidance, parameter details, return format, and a note about pagination. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the main action.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, all optional), the description covers all aspects: what it does, parameters, return format (mentioning the JSON structure as per output schema), caching behavior, and a caveat about pagination. No gaps remain.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It fully describes each parameter: parent_class's default and suggestion to use specific prefixes like cmdb_ci_server, limit and offset defaults, and notes on pagination. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property 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 'List available CMDB classes from the Data Model Navigator' and specifies that it returns the class hierarchy under a given parent. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on discovering CI class structure rather than querying individual CIs or counts.

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 states when to use: 'discover which CI classes exist before running queries, or to explore the CMDB class hierarchy.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear and the tool's role among siblings is evident.

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