list_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It does mention that the tool returns every class in one call, and it lists the output fields (grades, teachers, room-parent counts). However, it does not explicitly state side effects (though 'list' implies read-only), error conditions, or rate limits. For a list tool this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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: a lead sentence stating purpose, a second sentence explaining usage and downstream tools, and a clear Args block. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place. The purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and how to use the results with other tools. Since an output schema exists, return details are not needed. It lacks explicit error-handling information, but for a simple list tool with a required school_id, the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, but the description's Args section fully explains each parameter: school_id (from list_schools), name_contains (case-insensitive substring filter), and grade (with an example 'Kindergarten'). It adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and demonstrates how filters behave.

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 begins with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('classes'), with detail on included fields (grades, teachers, room-parent counts). It clearly distinguishes this bulk-list operation from single-class tools like get_class, and explains what the section_id will be used for. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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?

It states 'Returns every class in one call,' which implies the use case of obtaining all classes at once. It explicitly instructs the agent to use the section_id from results with get_class, edit_class, and related tools, giving clear downstream usage. It does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the context makes when-to-use clear.

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