get_class_properties

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantive behavioral context: it discloses that responses can be size-offloaded for big classes and that declared_only is the mitigation, warns about FName registration mismatches producing misleading failures, and states 'Schema only: NO instance values.' That is real disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

It is long and dense, but front-loaded: purpose first, then the routing alternatives, then the warning, then return shape. Almost every sentence carries distinct information, though the trailing Returns block is verbose relative to the rest and some repetition of schema-documented parameter behavior could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description's inline Returns block is essential and thorough — it enumerates the typed descriptor fields, class flags, and counts, and clarifies that no instance values are returned. For a read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret the result is missing.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already explain the class_name resolution forms and the declared_only default/semantics, so the description largely reinforces rather than extends the schema. The 'cheap way to ask what does this class add' framing adds a little intent-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a precise verb and resource with explicit scope: 'List every property VISIBLE on a class — the ones it DECLARES plus every inherited one.' It immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming list_object_properties, get_properties, and get_blueprint_variables_list, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use routing: use list_object_properties for the same descriptors WITH live values, get_properties when names are already known, and get_blueprint_variables_list for Blueprint-authored variables only. It also adds a counter-intuitive trigger ('get_class_functions coming back empty does NOT mean no API — ask here too'), which is exactly the kind of condition that changes tool selection.

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