innoslate_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that relations include their inverses and that class_name confines results, but says nothing about result size, caching, or auth, so it adds only modest 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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with what is returned before the parameter hints. Every line earns its place, though the kind list and class_name note read as loose fragments rather than a cohesive sentence.

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?

No output schema exists and schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries full weight. It names the entity categories returned but gives no shape or nesting detail, and omits project_url entirely, leaving the agent with an only partially complete picture for a 3-parameter introspection tool.

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% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden. It documents the 'kind' enum values well and explains class_name's scope, but leaves project_url completely undocumented, so two of three parameters are covered at best.

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 enumerates the exact resource contents it returns: classes, relations (with inverses), labels, and properties. That is specific enough to distinguish it from data-fetching siblings like innoslate_get or innoslate_find, though it lacks an explicit verb (list/return) and never names a sibling.

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 implies when to use the tool by documenting the 'kind' selector and the class_name restriction, which tells the agent this is a schema-introspection call. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as innoslate_get_started or innoslate_document_tree, nor any prerequisites.

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