onto_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic comparison action without revealing side effects, prerequisites, or whether the tool is read-only (expected for a diff). The agent lacks information on error handling, performance, or requirements.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could benefit from a slight expansion on output or usage.

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's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details such as the format of the diff output (e.g., plain triples, formatted table) and any constraints like file format requirements. This leaves gaps for an agent interpreting the tool.

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 already fully describes both parameters (new_path, old_path) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond 'ontology files' which is implied by the tool name. Baseline score applies.

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 verb 'compare' and the resource 'ontology files', and specifies the output 'show added/removed triples'. This distinguishes it from siblings like onto_align, onto_drift, or onto_history, which serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use the tool (when comparing two ontology versions) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it does not explain how it differs from onto_drift or onto_history.

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