ontomics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (YAML pack) and high-level purpose, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, file size, or error handling. The description adds value by specifying content scope but misses operational context.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first defines the tool's action and content, the second provides usage scenarios and output utility. It is front-loaded with essential information and efficiently structured.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on output structure or behavioral traits, which would enhance completeness for an export tool. It's sufficient but could be more informative.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately omits parameter details since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage, which is sufficient given the empty input schema.

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 specific action ('Export') and resource ('project's full domain knowledge as a portable YAML pack'), with explicit content details ('abbreviations, conventions, domain terms, and concept associations'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive export rather than specific queries or analyses.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use examples ('when asked to export conventions, create a domain pack, or share naming rules') and context for application ('output can be reviewed, curated, and saved for use in other projects or tools'), offering clear guidance without alternatives needed for this unique export function.

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