whodb_platform_shared_ontologies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds beyond that: it discloses that workspace targeting applies 'for per-call targeting without changing defaults,' which is a genuinely useful behavioral detail about ephemeral scoping.

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 sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the workspace caveat second. Tight and waste-free, though the second sentence partially restates the workspace schema description.

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 no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: it conveys purpose, scope, and workspace behavior. It leaves unexplained what 'consumers' are, how results paginate, and how it differs from the overlapping shared-* siblings.

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% across all 10 parameters, so the schema already carries parameter meaning; baseline is 3. The description reinforces the workspace scoping semantics but adds nothing about the generic list filters (name, type, limit, offset, fields).

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 (List) and resource (ontologies the selected project shares with other projects) plus an output-content hint ('including their consumers'). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as whodb_platform_discover_shared_ontologies, whodb_platform_shared_by_me, or whodb_platform_ontologies, so the agent could pick the wrong one.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Given several overlapping siblings in the shared/ontology naming family, this absence is a real selection hazard rather than a minor omission.

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