ontology_path_complete

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'Free' but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like auth requirements or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations, and the annotations carry most of the transparency burden.

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 a single concise sentence plus 'Free,' with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose immediately, making it efficient for the agent to parse.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description lacks output details. No output schema exists, so the agent has no information on the return format of the path and completion status. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns structured data.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal meaning. It references 'agent/session' but the schema already details agent_id and session_id. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a canonical ontology activation path and completion status for an agent/session, specifying the 'recover-preserve-passport' ontology. It distinguishes from siblings like get_ontology_next_action by focusing on the full path and status, though jargon like 'activation path' could be clearer.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over similar siblings such as get_ontology_layer or get_ontology_next_action, nor does it offer any context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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