get_class_property_descriptions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves all properties including system and hidden, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any permissions, side effects, or rate limits, but for a read-only retrieval, the current detail is adequate.

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 with three sentences: the first states the core function, and the next two provide usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without 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 an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and only one parameter, the description covers the essential context: what it retrieves and explicit usage restrictions. It lacks details on prerequisites or limitations, but completeness is sufficient for a low-complexity tool.

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 the parameter description in the schema already explains the class_symbolic_name clearly. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 itself from sibling tools like get_document_properties and get_searchable_property_descriptions by focusing on class-level properties and including system-owned and hidden ones.

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 explicitly states when to use (general document updates needing all properties) and when not to use (property extraction workflows), providing clear context and an implicit alternative.

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