sparql_describe

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context about timeout limits (30s default, 1h max) and scalability concerns for resources with many properties.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, a list of arguments, return value, and an example. It is efficient but the example adds length; still it earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, return format, and timeout considerations. With annotations indicating read-only and idempotent nature, the description is fairly complete, though it lacks error handling details.

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?

The input schema includes descriptions for each property, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description summarizes the parameters but adds little beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score.

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 description clearly states it executes a SPARQL DESCRIBE query and returns an RDF resource description, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other SPARQL operations like ASK, CONSTRUCT, or SELECT.

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 provides basic context on when to use (to describe resources) and suggests increasing timeout for large datasets, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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