bsdd_get_class_relations

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 discloses the relationship categories and the cross-referencing purpose, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the return structure, pagination details beyond the schema, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple get tool.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the primary action ('Get relationships'), lists concrete relationship types, and finishes with a practical use case. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the core behavior and provides usage context. It tells the user what relations are returned and mentions cross-referencing, which is the primary use case. It stops short of describing the exact response format, but the low complexity and clear parameter names make it adequately complete.

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 provides full coverage: classUri is described as 'Class URI', limit as 'Max relations to return (default 50)', and offset as 'Pagination offset'. The description reinforces the context (relations between classes) but does not add deeper parameter semantics beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for 100% 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 the tool's function: 'Get relationships between a class and other classes' and specifies the relationship types (parent, child, has-part, similar-to). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bsdd_get_class (which returns class details) and bsdd_get_class_properties (which returns properties). The cross-referencing use case further clarifies intent.

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 provides practical context with 'Useful for cross-referencing between IFC, ETIM, UniClass, etc.', which indicates when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools (e.g., bsdd_get_class, bsdd_get_class_properties) make the differentiation implicit.

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