get_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the return format (JSON array with iri, label, definition, domain, range) and gives examples, but does not explicitly state read-only status, permissions, or potential limitations. The behavior is implied by 'get' but not fully 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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the primary purpose, followed by a clear return specification. Every sentence adds value and there is no 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and the description explicitly details the output fields, the description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. There are no missing behavioral or required contextual details for this simple read operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics, and the schema already shows an empty parameter list.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get all' with a clear resource 'OWL object properties' and provides examples (hasJurisdiction, appliesTo). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_properties, which presumably handle targeted queries rather than full listings.

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 implies usage when one needs the complete set of object properties, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like query_properties or provide any exclusions. Usage context is implied, not elaborated.

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