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 the tool's behavior: it returns 'concept names as a ranked list' and provides a 'semantic overview.' However, it lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., how ranking is determined, performance considerations, or error cases), which prevents a perfect score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and alternatives. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what it does, the second describes the output and drill-down options, and the third specifies when to use it. There is no wasted text.

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 the tool's complexity (a single optional parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and output format. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., format of the ranked list), slightly reducing completeness.

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 'top_k' parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., default values or typical usage). This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'List the project's domain vocabulary ranked by importance — a semantic overview of what this codebase is about.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('domain vocabulary'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it provides a 'semantic overview' that 'reading individual files cannot provide,' unlike file-specific tools like describe_file.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when asked 'what is this project about', 'what are the main concepts', or when orienting in an unfamiliar codebase.' It also provides clear alternatives: 'Use query_concept or locate_concept to drill into any result,' distinguishing it from those sibling tools.

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