List bSDD dictionaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and repeatability profile. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior or response structure), but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.

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 a single, well-crafted sentence that front-loads the main purpose and immediately provides the key usage context. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple list tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description adequately sets expectations about discovering dictionary URIs. It could mention what the response contains, but 'discover the dictionary URIs' implies the key output, making it sufficient.

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%, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., uri format with example, numeric ranges for limit/offset, defaults). The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema carries the full burden effectively.

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: 'List the dictionaries' with specific examples (IFC, ETIM, Uniclass). It distinguishes from sibling tools by targeting the top-level 'dictionaries' resource rather than classes or 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?

Explicit guidance is given with 'Start here to discover the dictionary URIs the other tools need.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or scenarios to avoid.

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