mc_find_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description provides transparency about result limits (default 200, max 5000) and the limit parameter. It does not mention side effects, but as a query tool, this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and important constraints are in the second sentence. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., list of class names). However, the tool's simplicity and the fact that it's a search tool make this acceptable. It covers purpose, parameters, and limits well.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds context beyond the schema: it explains the default and max for limit, and gives examples for className. The direction parameter is clarified with examples. This adds meaningful value to the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'find' and the resource 'classes that extend or implement a given class/interface'. It distinguishes between 'subclasses' and 'implementors', which differentiates it from sibling tools like mc_find_refs and mc_list_classes.

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 says 'Useful for understanding class inheritance relationships', which implies when to use the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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