Get class details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by stating that properties are excluded and listing what is included (definition, class type, related IFC entities), giving behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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. The first sentence states the purpose and scope with a clear verb and resource; the second sentence provides a necessary separation from a sibling tool. No waste.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned contents (definition, class type, related IFC entities, optional child classes/relations) and notes the property separation. It is sufficiently complete for a get-details tool with good annotations, though it omits details about language fallback or error 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 every parameter is already described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details; it focuses on the output scope. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 'Get the details of one class' and enumerates the specific content (definition, class type, related IFC entities, optionally child classes and relations). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool bsdd_get_class_properties by explicitly noting they are fetched separately.

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 says 'Properties are fetched separately with bsdd_get_class_properties,' providing a clear alternative and exclusion. It implies this tool should be used when class details other than properties are needed, though it does not mention the closely related bsdd_get_class_relations tool.

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