List Classes

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

The read-only behavior is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, and the description's 'Get list' aligns with that. It does not add context about ordering, errors on missing packages, or whether the listing is simple versus extended, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation efficiently and earns its place without unnecessary details.

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 simple list tool with readOnlyHint, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The only notable gap is the lack of differentiation from list_extended_classes, which would make the context more complete.

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%; package_name is documented as 'The name of the package.' The description's 'in a package' merely echoes that without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 and resource: 'Get list of classes in a package.' It clearly distinguishes from method- and package-level tools, but it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling list_extended_classes, leaving potential ambiguity.

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 wording 'in a package' implies the primary use case: retrieve classes belonging to a given package. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_classes_like or list_extended_classes, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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