get_derived_classes_by_class_full_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' derived classes, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value description. Each sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor room for improvement in flow, but very efficient.

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 (class hierarchy query), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and output format explanation beyond a brief '@return' note. Completeness is borderline for safe use.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: '@param class_full_name: The fully qualified name of the class'. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides a title 'Class Full Name'), this parameter documentation in the description is essential and fully compensates for the schema gap. However, it doesn't explain format examples or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Get the derived classes of a class' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('derived classes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_parent_classes_by_class_full_name' by focusing on derived rather than parent classes. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implies usage context through the parameter name 'class_full_name' and the tool's name, suggesting it's for class hierarchy analysis. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_parent_classes_by_class_full_name' or 'get_class_methods_by_class_full_name', nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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