class_get

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well by stating that resolvedFeatures contains complete feature text rather than reference strings. It also clarifies the edition-selection behavior of the ruleset parameter. It stops short of describing not-found behavior or the full shape of the class entry, but this is strong for a getter.

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 four short sentences, each earning its place: core action, returned data behavior, ruleset semantics, and alternative-tool routing. The most important behavioral detail about resolvedFeatures is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The description covers the key invocation decisions: exact-name lookup, ruleset override, and which sibling tools to use for related feature or subclass needs. Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the overall class entry structure would strengthen it, but the provided level of detail is sufficient for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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 already documents all three parameters and has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds substantive value by explaining that ruleset '2024' returns the XPHB version and '2014' returns the classic PHB version, giving the enum real meaning. It adds less for name and source, but the ruleset clarification is meaningful.

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 names a specific action, 'Get', and resource, 'D&D 5e character class', scoped to exact-name lookup. It also distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by explaining that results include a resolvedFeatures array with full feature text rather than references.

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 explicitly routes to alternatives for related needs: classfeature_search for features at a specific level and subclass_get or subclassfeature_search for subclass details. The exact-name scoping also implies that class_search is the better choice when the name is uncertain.

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