whodb_platform_ontology_follow_link

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description's job is to add behavioral context — and it does: results are capped by both the requested limit and the server-side --max-rows setting, and the workspace object targets a host/org/project for one call without mutating session defaults. These are non-obvious traits that go beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the secondary constraints (result caps, per-call workspace) trailing. Nothing repeats the name or restates the schema.

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 7-parameter, nested-object read tool with no output schema, the description covers the outcome, the result-cap behavior and the workspace override path. It omits the shape of the returned linked-row preview and any failure modes (bad link_api_name, missing row), but the essentials are present.

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 defines all 7 parameters, including the nested workspace fields and their fallback chain. The description adds only the max-rows interaction with limit and the statement that workspace targeting is per-call, which is useful but marginal; 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 ('Follow') and resource ('ontology link') with the anchoring input ('from a row primary key') and the outcome ('preview linked rows'). It is distinguishable from data-retrieval siblings like whodb_platform_ontology_rows or lineage_neighbors, though it never names those alternatives 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?

The action framing ('follow one link from a primary key') implies when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus whodb_platform_ontology_references, whodb_platform_lineage_neighbors, or whodb_platform_ontology_rows, and no prerequisites such as how to obtain a valid link_api_name. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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