get_class_commentRetrieve the comment for a Smalltalk class by providing its class name. Use this to read the class documentation and notes directly from the image.
Get the comment of a Smalltalk class.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class_name | Yes | The name of the class to retrieve comment for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral detail beyond the basic retrieval action, but for a simple read operation this is not a major gap.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and noun phrase, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient. An agent can determine the operation, the required input, and the expected safety profile without additional context.
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%: the single parameter class_name is already described as 'The name of the class to retrieve comment for'. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but none is necessary given the full schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('the comment of a Smalltalk class'), which clearly identifies the operation. It differentiates this tool from sibling tools like get_class_source by focusing on comments rather than source code.
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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a class comment is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_class_source or get_method_source, so the routing guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.