jar_find_class

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: supported archive forms, classes directories, nested jar notation, name matching modes, and limit semantics. It does not mention no-match behavior or the exact return composition, but those are secondary given the read-only safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the use case, then structured parameter details. Every sentence carries information, and there is no filler or repetition that wastes an agent's attention.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to select and invoke it correctly: accepted inputs, match forms, limit behavior, and downstream tool chaining. The 'concrete class name' phrasing also clues the return value sufficiently.

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 provides no descriptions for its three properties, so the description fully compensates. The Args block explains jar with paths, class directories, and nested archives, name with simple/FQN/glob examples, and limit as the maximum matches returned. This is strong, concrete parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find classes in an archive' by simple name, fully-qualified name, or glob. It also grounds the tool in a practical use case, turning 'where does HttpClient live' into a class name for downstream tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like jar_find or jar_search, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'Use this to...' sentence gives explicit guidance on when to invoke the tool: when you need to resolve a vague class reference into a concrete class name for jar_class_outline or jar_read_source. It does not state when not to use it or name a preferred alternative, so it misses the full 5-level guidance.

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