mc_list_classes

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

Describes result cap (default 200, max 5000), the effect of limit parameter, and that it matches exact packages and subpackages. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it does a good job disclosing relevant behaviors without contradictions.

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?

Three sentences: first defines purpose, second adds return details, third explains limit behavior. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the core action.

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, it explains return format (class names and source locations) adequately. Could mention potential errors or more detail on the result structure, but for a list tool this is sufficient. The cap and version context help completeness.

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% with descriptions; description adds context like default/max for limit, version fallback, and subpackage matching. These details go beyond the schema fields, providing meaningful additional guidance.

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?

Clearly states 'List all classes under a specific package path' and differentiates from siblings like mc_list_packages (packages) and mc_get_class (single class). The description specifies the verb (list), resource (classes), and scope (under a package).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to discover classes in a package hierarchy,' giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, though the sibling set implies them. Could be improved with a direct comparison to mc_get_class or mc_list_packages.

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