analyze_class

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool uses javap, returns only signatures, and lists output components. Could mention if Maven installation or specific permissions are required, but overall transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. First sentence states purpose and function, second gives usage guideline. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 4 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema, the description provides a clear overview. It lacks detailed output structure but compensates by explaining what is returned. Could be slightly more complete on format behavior but sufficient for selection.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates return types but not parameter-specific semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Analyze' and resource 'Java class structure', and clearly states what it returns (fields, methods, constructors, superclass, interfaces) and what it excludes (method bodies). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like decompile_class and get_inheritance_tree.

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?

Explicitly advises to use for 'lightweight overview when you do not need full source code,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though the context hints at decompile_class.

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