mc_get_class

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

Discloses that 'full' views may exceed the response budget for large classes, and describes the variations in information returned for each view. Without annotations, it carries the full burden, but it does not mention error cases (e.g., class not found) or version-dependent behavior.

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?

Description is concise at about 10 lines, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear bullet-like list for the view parameter options. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return types for each view sufficiently (e.g., 'hierarchy + counts + one-line method/field signatures'). It does not detail the exact response structure or error handling, but provides enough for the agent to choose appropriately.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by detailing what each view option returns (e.g., 'summary' gives one-line signatures, 'methods' gives method signatures) and suggesting an order of use, going beyond the schema's enum 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 states 'Get info about a Minecraft or Fabric API class' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool mc_get_method by focusing on classes rather than methods, though it doesn't explicitly exclude other class-related tools like 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?

Provides explicit guidance on using the 'view' parameter: start with 'summary' as it always fits the budget, and only use 'full' when needed. This helps the agent avoid exceeding response limits. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like mc_get_method.

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