whodb_platform_data_model_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the description is not responsible for the safety profile. It still adds real behavior: the enumerated return payload and the fact that per-call workspace targeting does not mutate session defaults. It omits any note on result size, cost, or truncation for what is an aggregate over multiple resource classes.

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?

Four short sentences ordered purpose → when to use → what you get → parameter note; nothing is buried. The final workspace sentence is largely redundant with the schema and could be dropped without loss.

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 zero-required-param aggregate read with no output schema, the agent learns the content categories, the intended position in a workflow, and the targeting behavior. Because there is no output schema, the description is the only guide to structure, and it names sections but not their shape or how 'fields' filters them.

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 (fields, workspace.*, omit_files, omit_lineage) are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the workspace {host, org, project} targeting semantics that the schema already explains, adding the 'without changing defaults' nuance but nothing about how 'fields' interacts with the returned sections.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Summarize') with a scoped resource ('selected-project data-model resources') and enumerates exactly what the summary contains (sources, datasets, ontologies, graph relationships, modeling gaps). It is distinguishable from near-neighbors like workspace_summary or project_health by the data-model framing, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use this before ontology, dataset, or lineage work' gives a concrete trigger and implicitly routes the agent toward the three tool families it precedes, and the promise of 'read tools an agent should call next' frames it as a starting point. There is no explicit when-not condition, but the positioning is unambiguous.

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