ontomics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it analyzes file structure without reading content, returns annotated symbols, and accepts partial path matching. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, supported file types, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states core functionality, second provides usage context, third offers implementation detail and sibling reference. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format (e.g., structure of annotations, semantic roles).

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 the schema already documents the single 'path' parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'partial paths' and providing an example, but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema description.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('describe', 'returns') and resources ('file's structure', 'classes, functions, methods'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning what it returns (annotated domain concepts/semantic roles) and contrasting with describe_symbol for drilling deeper.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use it ('when you need to understand a file's shape, what symbols it contains, or what concepts it implements') and when to use an alternative ('Use describe_symbol to drill into any symbol shown'). It also clarifies what it does NOT do ('WITHOUT reading it').

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