get_project_class_hierarchy

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only implies a read operation but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., class not found), output format beyond inheritance tree, or whether it caches results. Lacks depth.

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?

Very concise, two sentences with no redundancy. Could be improved by including brief parameter details within same space, but front-loading of purpose is effective.

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 an output schema exists, return format is likely documented. However, for 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should provide more context on class_name and depth to be fully complete.

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?

Adds value by explaining 'direction' parameter values, but does not cover 'class_name' (expected format? full path?) or 'depth' (unit? inclusive?). With schema description coverage at 0%, description only partially compensates.

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?

Description clearly states 'Show the inheritance tree for a class in the project,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_project_references, which are about searching references rather than hierarchy.

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?

Description provides direction options (ancestors, descendants, both) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context for depth parameter.

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