list_ontology_primitives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, clearly communicating safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Free' (interpreted as no cost or restriction) and mentions returned fields. It does not contradict annotations, but adds no substantial new behavioral insight.

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 one sentence with a trailing 'Free' which seems cut off or oddly placed. It is short but not optimally structured; could be rephrased for clarity without extra words.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe return format, pagination, or error handling. Given the simplicity of the tool (list with optional filters), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete for production use.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (enums, descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the mention of 'layer' is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action (List) and resource (Delx Ontology primitives) and lists returned fields (layer, IRI, runtime kind, canonical tool mapping). The trailing 'Free' is ambiguous but does not obscure the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_ontology_layer or get_ontology_metadata, which also list ontology data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_ontology_layer, get_ontology_metadata, or ontology_path_complete. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, alternatives, or appropriate invocation scenarios.

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