abstract_ocel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions wrapping a function but omits details on side effects, error handling, or permissions. The return value is not characterized beyond 'textual description'.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, constraint/reference, and usage guidance. No unnecessary words; information is front-loaded.

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?

The description provides the essential purpose and use context. However, with no schema descriptions for two parameters and no annotation support, the description falls short of fully enabling correct invocation, especially for parameters like max_len.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. Only object_type is described (must be a valid OCEL object type). ocel_id and max_len are not mentioned, leaving their meaning and usage unclear.

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 provides a textual description of OCEL features for a single object type, distinguishing it from sibling abstract_* tools that target different aspects. It uses specific verb 'describe' and resource 'OCEL features'.

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 advises using this tool before deciding which object type to flatten, providing a clear use case. It also references describe_ocel for valid object types, but does not explicitly exclude any scenarios.

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