Search Classes Like

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read-only operation, and the description's 'Find' wording agrees with that. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation, such as pattern matching semantics, case sensitivity, or whether results are scoped to loaded code only.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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, has one required parameter, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, so the description does not need to explain much. Still, the ambiguous meaning of 'pattern' is a notable gap because an agent cannot tell whether to pass a substring, wildcard expression, or exact name fragment.

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%, and the input schema already documents class_name_query as 'The pattern to search for in class names.' The description merely restates the same idea without adding extra meaning about accepted pattern syntax, wildcards, or formatting.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Find classes matching a pattern.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_methods_like and search_traits_like by targeting classes specifically. However, it does not clarify what kind of pattern matching is used ('like' semantics, wildcards, regex), so it falls short of full clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_classes, search_methods_like, or search_implementors. The intended use is implied by the name and the single parameter, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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