bsdd_search_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose without mentioning pagination, sorting, result structure, language handling, or any limitations. The schema parameters cover search options, but the tool's runtime behavior is opaque.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides only the minimal purpose. It does not explain what the response looks like, how to refine the search effectively, or when to choose sibling tools like bsdd_text_search. This leaves the agent without enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 adds marginal value by hinting at the types of content to search (IFC classes, ETIM groups), but the schema already documents searchText with examples. No additional semantic enrichment beyond that.

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 it searches for classes across bSDD dictionaries by keyword, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bsdd_get_dictionary_classes or bsdd_get_class. It also provides concrete use cases (IFC classes, ETIM groups). However, it does not explicitly contrast with bsdd_text_search, which could be a close alternative.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use to find IFC classes, ETIM groups, or any classification.' This provides context for when to use the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5, but it is more than merely implied.

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