get_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns staff entries with user_id and assoc_id, and implies a read operation via 'Get' and the pre-change usage. However, it doesn't explicitly confirm it's read-only, nor does it mention error handling, permissions, or missing-ID behavior. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 efficiently structured: the main purpose in the first line, followed by staff entry details, a usage note, and a parameter description. It's slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value. Front-loading the purpose ensures 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?

For a simple get operation, the description covers the essential elements: what it returns (staff list with fields), when to use it (before staff changes), and the parameter. It doesn't describe return format beyond staff entries, but an output schema exists (though not shown) which may cover that. Minor omissions like error behavior are not critical for this simple tool.

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 schema describes section_id as an integer, but the description adds crucial meaning: 'Class/section ID (from list_classes)'. This tells the agent where to obtain the value and what it represents, going beyond the bare type definition. Given 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is valuable.

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 'Get one class with its full staff list' – a specific verb and resource. It details the staff categories (teachers, assistants, room parents) and distinguishes this from list_classes (which lists all classes) and other class-related tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives a clear usage directive: 'Use this before changing staff to see the current state.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternative tools, but the context is specific enough that the agent understands this is for inspecting a single class prior to modifications.

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