whodb_platform_ontology_embedding_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: jobs include progress and errors, and workspace targeting is per-call without changing session defaults.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the core purpose before workflow context and workspace behavior. It is appropriately sized, though the workspace sentence partially repeats structured schema information.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow position, return contents (progress and errors), and per-call targeting. It does not explain pagination or default result limits, but no such gaps are severe enough to prevent correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents id, fields, and workspace with more detail than the description. The description mentions workspace targeting and that it does not change defaults, but this is largely redundant with the schema's own workspace description.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (List), resource (embedding backfill jobs), scope (for one ontology), and the key output attributes (progress and errors). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by relating to whodb_platform_action reembed and whodb_platform_ontology_similar.

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 explicitly places the tool in a workflow: use after whodb_platform_action reembed and before whodb_platform_ontology_similar. This gives clear when-to-use guidance relative to specific alternatives.

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