whodb_platform_ontology_record_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing the return content (allowed read/write properties, permitted actions, denial codes) even though no output schema exists, though it says nothing about auth prerequisites or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the report's contents before the usage trigger and the workspace note. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

Given four parameters, a nested workspace object, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, when to invoke, and per-call targeting adequately. The main omission is that it does not explain what the denial codes signify or the difference in output scope when record_key is omitted, which is left to the schema.

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 all four parameters, including record_key semantics and workspace targeting. The description's workspace note ("per-call targeting without changing defaults") largely restates the schema's "Optional target for this call only" text, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 (Report) and resource (capabilities on an ontology record) and enumerates exactly what is returned: readable/writable properties plus allowed behavior actions with denial codes. This distinguishes it from sibling mutators like whodb_platform_update_ontology_record and whodb_platform_ontology_action by framing it as a pre-flight permission probe.

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?

"Call before writing or executing actions" gives a clear trigger condition that ties it to the write/action siblings. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g., comparing to whodb_platform_my_grants or resource_permissions) or stating when it can be skipped, but the intended usage window is unambiguous.

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