bsdd_list_dictionaries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does explain that this is a discovery operation returning URIs, but it omits details like pagination behavior (though limit/offset are in schema) and response format. This is acceptable for a simple list endpoint but not richly transparent.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a brief purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and value. It doesn't explain the output structure, but that's likely straightforward given the listing nature. Given the low complexity, this is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both `limit` and `offset` are well-described in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional parameter context, which is fine since the schema already conveys meaning; thus the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('available bSDD dictionaries'), with concrete examples (IFC, ETIM, UniClass) that make the scope obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on dictionary discovery rather than class/property lookup.

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 phrase 'Use to discover classification systems and their URIs' provides a clear use case. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling tools are focused on searching/getting specific entities, so the intent is unambiguous and contextual.

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