describe_ontology

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is informational by listing output content categories, and it adds a session-ordering constraint. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, caches data, or how repeated calls behave. For a describe-type tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 short sentences with no filler. The output scope is front-loaded, and the important usage instruction about calling once per session before remember is included efficiently. Every word contributes value.

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 description covers the high-level return content and the key usage instruction, but the dataset parameter remains ambiguous, and there is no explanation of default behavior. Since there is no output schema, the listed return categories help, but the description is not fully complete for correct invocation in all cases.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the 'dataset' parameter, and the description only says 'for a dataset' without explaining valid values, whether null selects a default dataset, or how dataset names are specified. The description does not adequately compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 explicitly lists what the tool provides: entity types, functional relations, imported ontologies, and store stats for a dataset. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and content. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'describes', but the intent is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall or list_datasets.

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 usage directive: 'Call once per session before remember.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool relative to session flow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a one-shot setup operation.

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