bsdd_get_class_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the paginated nature and the content of the returned properties, but does not mention required permissions, error behavior, default sorting, or how pagination parameters interact. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant information.

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?

For a list-retrieval tool with a well-described schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, pagination, and usage context. It lacks details about error cases or exact pagination behavior, but remains largely complete for a simple read operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond noting pagination, which aligns with limit/offset. It does not elaborate on classUri or languageCode semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('paginated list of properties for a bSDD class'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also names the included content (data types, units, allowed values), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bsdd_get_class or bsdd_get_property.

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 states a use case: 'Use to know what properties a BIM element should have.' This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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