classComponents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List class components', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, output format, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient phrase ('List class components') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'components' entails, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke this tool in a complex environment with many siblings.

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 100%, with the parameter 'url' documented as 'The URL of the class'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List class components' clearly states the action (list) and resource (class components), but it's vague about what 'components' specifically means (e.g., methods, attributes, interfaces). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'classIncludes' or 'objectStructure', which might overlap in functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'classIncludes', 'objectStructure', and 'findDefinition', the description lacks context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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