describe_resource

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: output covers both directions, incoming is toggleable, and each triple names its source graph. It omits read-only confirmation (only implied), how limit interacts across directions, and pagination/truncation behavior.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the two-direction explanation. The clause about the object direction being "where the interesting part is" is chattier than necessary but aids understanding rather than wasting space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe return shape, which it partially does (triples both ways, graph provenance). It omits read-only safety framing and what happens when limit truncates results, leaving some gaps for a 4-param query 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the incoming toggle ("unless you turn it off") but adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (describe) and resource (one IRI), and clarifies scope: triples where the IRI is subject and object. It implicitly contrasts with hand-written queries but does not name the sibling (sparql_query) it replaces, leaving a small differentiation gap.

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?

"Faster to reach for than writing the query by hand" implies the tool is a shortcut alternative to sparql_query, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative, so usage is only inferable.

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