determine_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions substring matching and a prerequisite, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, case sensitivity, pagination, or return format. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 with two sentences, no redundancy, and the important prerequisite is highlighted. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and an output schema (not described), the description is adequate but sparse. It doesn't cover error handling, permissions, or behavior with no matches, but the output schema can clarify return values.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds marginal value; it mentions 'up to 3 words' which is also in the schema. No new parameter-specific semantics are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 it finds classes via substring matching. It specifies both the action and resource (classes). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like document_search, but the context of 'classes' vs documents is clear enough.

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 a specific prerequisite: call list_root_classes_tool first to get valid root_class names. This is good guidance. It does not, however, discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives for searching classes.

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