List OCSF event classes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it retrieves 'all OCSF event classes and their descriptions', which clarifies the scope and output content beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail format or pagination.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bulleted usage guidelines and a clear transition to alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and alternatives well, but lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, pagination), which could be helpful despite annotations. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'version' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'for a specific schema version' but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema's 'e.g., '1.6.0''. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra parameter insights.

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 specific action ('Get all OCSF event classes and their descriptions') and resource ('for a specific schema version'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'ocsf_get_class' for detailed schemas, making the scope and differentiation clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Browse available OCSF event classes before creating a mapping', 'Identify which class best matches your log data', 'Understand the purpose and scope of each event class') and when to use an alternative ('Once you identify a candidate class, use `ocsf_get_class` to see its complete schema'). This covers both use cases and exclusions effectively.

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