get_ignition_class_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states only that it 'gets documentation,' offering no detail on read-only behavior, return format, error conditions, or the effect of the version parameter. The schema's default for version is not disclosed in the description, and no safety profile is established.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It clearly conveys the operation. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful context; it's concise but not under-specified. It earns its place but could include more.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves open what 'documentation' includes (e.g., class overview, method list). It also fails to mention the version parameter's role or how this differs from sibling doc tools. For a tool with 3 parameters and related siblings, the description is too sparse to be fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter (packagePath, className, version) already has a clear description. The description's phrase 'specific class' reinforces className but adds no new semantic information. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Gets the documentation for a specific class'—a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_ignition_package_docs or get_ignition_member_docs, but the term 'class' clarifies scope. Missing explicit sibling differentiation prevents a 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. There is no mention of searching the API or using package/member docs for other levels of granularity. The user must infer usage from the name alone.

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