Get the relations of a class

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the low bar is met. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of reverse=true ('the classes that point at it') and giving relation type examples, which goes beyond what annotations alone convey. No contradictions found.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, includes examples, and a use case. Every word earns its place 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?

The tool has 6 params and no output schema, but the schema documents each parameter thoroughly and annotations cover safety. The description covers purpose and use case, though it does not describe the return format or potential edge cases. For a read-only list operation, this is nearly complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the reverse parameter's effect and showing example relation names, which helps an agent understand the domain. This slightly elevates it above the baseline.

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's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('relations of a class'), provides concrete examples (IsEqualTo, HasMaterial, IsParentOf), and explains the reverse mode. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like bsdd_get_class (single class) and bsdd_get_class_properties (properties).

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 ('Useful for mapping between dictionaries') and implies when to use it by mentioning reverse mode. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for direct comparison, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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