get_ontology_layer

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

Annotations clearly indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'Free.' which is ambiguous but not contradictory. The description does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 very short and front-loaded. The only excess is 'Free.' which adds minimal value, but overall it is concise and gets the point across quickly.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description provides a basic idea of the return (layer spec and primitives) but lacks details on the format or structure. For a simple read operation it is adequate but could be more informative.

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 parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline level.

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 the tool returns a specific ontology layer spec and its primitives. It is specific about the resource (Delx Ontology layer) and action (return), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_ontology_metadata or list_ontology_primitives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over similar ones.

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