bsdd_get_property_classes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe the result shape (e.g., list of class URIs or full class objects). Although the verb 'find' suggests a query, the lack of any detail about pagination (despite limit/offset params) or output format leaves gaps.

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 long, front-loads the core action, and uses the second sentence to provide a practical use case. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool is relatively simple, but without an output schema or annotations, the description should at least indicate what the response contains. It states it finds classes, implying a list of classes, but does not specify whether these are names, URIs, or full objects. The lack of this information makes it less complete than an ideal tool description.

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%, with 'propertyUri' described as 'Property URI'. The description adds examples like 'FireRating' and 'AcousticRating', which suggest that short names may be acceptable, adding some semantic value. However, this could be ambiguous if a full URI is required, and the description does not elaborate on the format for limit/offset beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Find which bSDD classes use a given property.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and differentiates it from sibling tools like bsdd_get_class_properties by being the inverse lookup. The example properties ('FireRating', 'AcousticRating') further clarify 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 clear context for when to use it: 'Useful to understand where a property... applies.' It implies a scenario where the user has a property and wants to find applicable classes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling tools.

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