ontomics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior (comparing ontology, showing changes) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. While it adds useful context about the diff scope, it doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotation coverage, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding by an agent.

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 (ontology diffing across revisions) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well by explaining purpose and usage. However, it could be more complete by mentioning output format or error cases. For a tool with no structured data beyond the schema, it provides solid context but has minor gaps.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% coverage, providing a default value. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already covers, but since there's only one parameter and the schema is well-documented, the baseline is high. No additional param info is needed, making this adequate.

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 ('compare', 'shows') and resources ('domain ontology between two git revisions'), detailing what it does (shows added, removed, or changed concepts). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on ontology diffing across revisions, unlike tools like 'list_concepts' or 'vocabulary_health' that handle other aspects.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'for understanding how the project's vocabulary evolved across commits or for reviewing whether a PR introduced naming inconsistencies.' This provides clear context and use cases, helping the agent choose this over alternatives like 'check_naming' or 'vocabulary_health' for revision-based comparisons.

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