list_sfcc_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation ('Get a complete list'), which is helpful, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, or response format. The description adds some context about being a 'starting point' but doesn't fully disclose operational aspects, making it adequate but with 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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two sentences explaining usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be more robust. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on output format or behavioral constraints. For a read-only list tool, this is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement in transparency.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, but it doesn't add extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 a complete list of all available SFCC classes.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('SFCC classes'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_sfcc_classes' by emphasizing 'complete list' versus search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling distinction, keeping it at a 4 instead of 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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'for exploration and discovery when you need to understand the full scope of SFCC APIs' and 'when you're new to SFCC development.' It implies usage as a starting point but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'search_sfcc_classes,' so it scores a 4 rather than 5.

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