list_extended_classesRetrieve the list of extended classes in a Smalltalk package by providing its package name.
Get list of extended classes in a package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_name | Yes | The name of the package |
| 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, so the read-only nature is covered, and the description's 'Get list' is consistent with that. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as package-load requirements or what qualifies as an extended class, but the annotation lowers the burden for this simple read-only operation.
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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary qualification.
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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations. Still, the description leaves 'extended classes' undefined and does not explain how it differs from list_classes, which is material for correct tool selection among the many sibling tools.
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 100% coverage for the single package_name parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics, which matches the baseline 3 for high 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Get list of extended classes', and scopes it to a package, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_classes by the word 'extended'. However, it never defines what 'extended classes' means, so an agent without domain knowledge could conflate it with a regular class listing.
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 phrase 'in a package' gives some context, but there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over list_classes or search_classes_like, nor any exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the qualifier 'extended'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.