runClass

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Runs a class' without any details on side effects, authorization needs, or output. For a potentially destructive action like execution, this is insufficient.

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 extremely brief (3 words) but lacks substance. Conciseness is not achieved if the description fails to convey necessary information; it is under-specified.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description should still explain what 'run' means and what the agent can expect. It provides no context about return values or behavior, leaving the agent uncertain.

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 only parameter, 'className', has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description adds no meaning. The agent cannot infer what format or values are expected for the class name.

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 'Runs a class' is vague. It does not specify what running a class entails (e.g., execution, testing, instantiation). It barely improves on the tool name 'runClass' and fails to differentiate from related tools like 'classComponents' or 'unitTestRun'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus other tools in the sibling list.

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