class_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return payload but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, whether RTTI data must be present, failure modes, or how the build parameter affects behavior. The output detail is useful but falls well short of full behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence fragment with no filler; it lists the key return contents compactly. It is appropriately sized for a lookup tool, though the fragment format is not ideal for scanning.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 3 parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description only covers the return payload. It omits parameter meanings and usage context, leaving an agent unable to reliably invoke the tool without guessing what build and slot_limit control.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (name, build, slot_limit). An agent must infer semantics solely from parameter names, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 RTTI class resource and enumerates what it returns: bases with offsets, derived classes, vtables with labelled slots, and constructor/destructor candidates. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like function_info and global_info. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name an alternative, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites stated. The description only implies that the tool is for RTTI class queries; it does not tell an agent when to choose it over function_info, global_info, or other siblings.

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