get_classpath_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or performance implications. It covers the prerequisite but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (title, usage, output, additional info). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no annotations, the description covers the basics: purpose, prerequisite, and output components. It misses behavioral details like error handling or what happens with all params false, but is largely complete for a simple read 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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond listing 'Source folders, libraries, and classpath containers' in output, which aligns with parameters but provides no new parameter semantics.

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 'Get project classpath information' and elaborates with 'get all classpath entries for the loaded project'. It specifies the resource (classpath information) and action (get), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project_structure or get_diagnostics.

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 explicitly mentions the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first', which guides usage. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or compare with alternatives, missing some depth.

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