get_main_application_classes_code

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 usefully discloses that Kotlin compiler metadata is stripped unless slim=False, which is real behavioral value. It omits other important traits: what defines a 'main application class', what happens with out-of-range offsets, and any size or rate limits on raw dumps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one non-obvious caveat about metadata stripping. Nothing is wasted, though 'with pagination' is left dangling without explanation.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the slim caveat is covered. However, for a paginated bulk-fetch tool with zero schema documentation, the description should define 'main application classes' scope and pagination defaults.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains slim's default behavior well but says nothing about count/offset semantics — notably that count defaults to 0, leaving unclear whether 0 means 'all' or 'none'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch main application classes' code') and distinguishes itself implicitly from get_main_application_classes_names (names only) and get_class_source (single class). It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Implies use when you need bulk code for the app's main classes, and hints that slim=False is for raw dumps, but gives no guidance on when to prefer get_class_source, get_main_application_classes_names, or search_classes_by_keyword instead.

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