runClass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Runs a class' is vague and does not reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, if it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output might look like. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with just three words, 'Runs a class.', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified, but based solely on structure and brevity, it earns full marks for efficiency.

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 complexity implied by the tool name (likely involving execution or processing), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 one parameter 'className' with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description 'Runs a class' does not add any meaning about the parameter, such as what 'className' represents (e.g., a class name, identifier, or path), its format, or examples. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Runs a class' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'runClass' without adding meaningful specificity. It lacks details about what 'running' entails (e.g., executing code, starting a process, or performing a test) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'unitTestRun' or 'runQuery', which might involve similar actions on different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'unitTestRun' and 'runQuery' present, there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over others.

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