get_parent_classes_by_class_full_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get the parent classes') and the return format, but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid input. For a tool with no 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 brief sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, explaining the parameter, and describing the return. It's front-loaded with the core purpose first. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 (retrieving hierarchical data), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return format, but lacks behavioral context like error conditions, authentication needs, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for an agent.

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 parameter information beyond the schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (just 'Class Full Name' title), but the description explains '@param class_full_name: The fully qualified name of the class' - clarifying what format is expected. Since schema coverage is low (<50%), the description compensates well for the single parameter.

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 parent classes of a class' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('parent classes of a class'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_derived_classes_by_class_full_name (which gets child classes) and get_class_methods_by_class_full_name (which gets methods). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or when to choose this over similar tools like get_class_full_name_by_id or get_derived_classes_by_class_full_name. The agent must infer usage from the name and purpose alone.

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