bsdd_get_dictionary_classes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency. It communicates that the tool returns a hierarchy, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior, response structure, or any potential performance implications. The examples add context but not behavioral detail.

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 only two sentences, with the main action front-loaded. Every word adds value: it states the function, gives concrete use cases, and avoids unnecessary detail. This is an excellent model of conciseness.

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 tool's purpose and typical use cases, which is sufficient for a simple read operation given the fully documented schema. However, since there is no output schema, it could have been slightly richer in explaining what the hierarchy looks like, but the term 'class hierarchy' gives adequate indication.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how parameters interact or provide usage syntax.

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 'Get the class hierarchy of a bSDD dictionary' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like bsdd_get_class (which retrieves a single class) by focusing on the hierarchy, and provides concrete examples (IFC classes, ETIM product groups) that clarify its scope.

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 provides explicit usage context ('Use to browse IFC classes, ETIM product groups, etc.'), making it clear when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when NOT to use it, so it lacks full exclusions.

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