jar_class_dependencies

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by explaining that references are split into internal and external and that the tool supports jar paths, class directories, and nested jar notation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a short 'useful for' framing, and a clean Args list. No filler or redundant content; every line contributes to selection or invocation.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how to specify each parameter. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so excellently: jar formats, class_name matching options, include_jdk scope, and limit meaning are all spelled out clearly, adding real value over the bare schema titles.

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 action and resource: 'List the classes a compiled class references, split into internal and external.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jar_read_source or jar_disassemble by focusing on dependency references rather than source or bytecode.

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 clear use cases: tracing what a class touches and identifying which dependency supplies a type, with the note that it works 'without decompiling anything.' It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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