get_class_property_descriptions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool retrieves all properties including system/hidden and returns CachePropertyDescription objects. It does not discuss side effects or auth needs, but for a read-only retrieval this is adequate. It adds context beyond the schema but lacks depth.

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: a brief purpose statement, followed by usage warnings in bold (IMPORTANT and DO NOT), then clear parameter and return documentation. Every sentence adds value with 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's simplicity (one parameter, read-only retrieval) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, what the input is, and what the output represents. It is fully adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds a clear explanation of the sole parameter 'class_symbolic_name' as 'The symbolic name of the class to retrieve properties for', which provides meaning beyond the empty schema. This is sufficient for a single parameter.

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 retrieves ALL properties of a class including system properties. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is meant for general document updates and explicitly warns against using it for property extraction workflows, which differentiates it from tools like get_searchable_property_descriptions.

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 explicit when-to-use ('for general document updates where you need to see ALL properties') and when-not-to-use ('DO NOT use for property extraction workflows'). However, it does not name specific alternative tools for the excluded use case, stopping short of full guidance.

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