onto_extend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the pipeline sequence but does not disclose behavioral traits such as atomicity, rollback behavior, side effects on data state, permissions required, or any constraints beyond the parameter schema. The 'stop_on_violations' parameter is not explained in the description, leaving the agent unaware of default behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: first sentence explains the pipeline purpose and sequence, second lists the component tools. Every word earns its place. Highly concise.

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 is minimal; for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, it could provide more context about the pipeline's behavior (e.g., whether it's atomic, what happens on violation beyond the parameter, default reasoning profile). However, it gives a clear overview of the combined steps, which may be sufficient if the agent is familiar with the individual tools.

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% (all 9 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter interplay or typical values. The description is generic and does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 is a convenience pipeline combining ingest, SHACL validation, and OWL reasoning in one call. It explicitly names the three sub-tools (onto_ingest, onto_shacl, onto_reason), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform these steps individually.

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 usage as a 'convenience pipeline' for combining steps, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over individual tools, nor does it provide guidance on when not to use it (e.g., when fine-grained control is needed). The guidance is implicit.

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