search_class

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses fuzzy search and potential partial results, but does not mention other behavioral traits like read-only nature, permissions, or rate limits. The disclosure is minimal but adequate for a search 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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and a key behavioral note. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 no output schema and missing annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination, or result format. It only mentions partial results but omits details on how results are presented, which is important for an agent invoking the tool.

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% description coverage, so parameters are already explained. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool performs fuzzy search for Java classes within Maven dependencies, which is a specific action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_class or decompile_class by focusing on search rather than analysis or decompilation, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 context that results may be partial during background scan, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It implies usage for searching classes but provides no exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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