veritasgraph_get_ontology

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the meaningful payload detail: each item carries a lifecycle status of proposed / certified / deprecated. It does not say whether all statuses are returned or filtered, whether the result is a read-only snapshot, or anything about size and freshness. For a zero-parameter getter this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the resource identity is front-loaded. The telegraphic noun-phrase construction (no verb) makes it slightly less immediately actionable than a full sentence would be.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the shape of what comes back (types, predicates with domain/range, terms with status). It leaves open whether deprecated entries are included and how large the vocabulary response may be, which matters for an agent planning its next call.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of domain/range on predicates is extra semantic context about the returned data rather than about inputs.

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 names a specific resource — the governed vocabulary — and enumerates its contents (entity types, predicates with domain/range, glossary terms) with their status values. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_term or search_terms, which target individual or filtered terms. It lacks an explicit verb ('get/return'), so the action is inferred from the name rather than stated.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus veritasgraph_get_term, veritasgraph_search_terms, or veritasgraph_get_graph, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must guess that this is the schema-discovery call to make before querying. The implied use case is inferable from the content listing, but never made explicit.

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