get_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns 'complete properties and methods', but does not disclose return format, error behavior, whether inherited members are included, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure with limited behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup operation.

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?

This is a simple tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description states that it returns complete class/interface attributes and methods, which is adequate for basic use, but it lacks details on edge cases, scope (e.g., inherited members), and error handling, making it minimally complete rather than comprehensive.

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 input schema describes className with examples, giving 100% coverage. The description adds the nuance '类或接口' (class or interface), slightly extending the schema's '类名', but does not otherwise provide additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 '查询某个类或接口的完整属性和方法' (query the complete properties and methods of a class or interface), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_method (specific method) and get_module (module-level).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that usage is implied — if you need full class/interface details, this is the tool. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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