client_getClassInfo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get current connection information' but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what specific data is included, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. No contradictions exist, but the description is too sparse to be transparent.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, but lacks any additional context that could make it more useful. It earns its place without being verbose.

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 should clarify what 'connection information' includes, such as whether it returns session state, IP, protocol, or other details. The description only offers a vague phrase, and with many sibling classInfo tools, it does not differentiate the client-level specifics. This leaves the agent under-informed about the tool's full behavior.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter sessionId, including a description and example, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but this is acceptable given that the schema already documents it fully.

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 'Get current connection information' clearly states a specific action (get) and resource (connection information for the client). It is unambiguous in its intent, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like client_getState or session_status, which could also involve connection details.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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