whodb_platform_ontology_rows

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: results are capped by both the requested limit and the MCP --max-rows setting, and the workspace block targets a host/org/project for a single call without altering 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?

Two tight paragraphs with the purpose front-loaded; every sentence carries information (the cap rules and the workspace targeting behavior) 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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the two non-obvious behaviors — result capping and per-call workspace overrides — for a read-only tool. It stops short of explaining the return shape or how it relates to sibling query/aggregate tools, so an agent has a small remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the --max-rows cap that interacts with 'limit' and clarifying that the workspace object is per-call only and leaves defaults untouched. The 'id' and 'fields' parameters' semantics still rest on the schema.

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 and resource: 'Preview rows for one ontology object type.' This distinguishes it from source_rows/dataset_rows by tying rows to an ontology object type, but it doesn't explicitly name the nearest siblings like whodb_platform_ontology_query or whodb_platform_dataset_rows, so an agent still has to infer which row-listing tool applies.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. With siblings such as whodb_platform_ontology_query, whodb_platform_ontology_aggregate and whodb_platform_dataset_rows available, an agent gets no signal about when a capped row preview is preferable to a query or aggregate.

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