onto_import_schema

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read (introspect DB) and write (generate OWL) operation, but does not mention whether the database is modified, permissions required, or if the ontology overwrites existing data. Some transparency but gaps remain.

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 efficiently convey the tool's purpose and capabilities. However, it omits essential info like output format or return value, which could be added without harming conciseness.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the output (e.g., ontology IRI) and prerequisites (e.g., DB access). It lacks this context, making it incomplete for an import 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (base_iri, connection). The tool description reinforces the PostgreSQL context but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description explicitly states the tool imports a PostgreSQL database schema as an OWL ontology, listing specific introspection details (tables, columns, PKs, FKs) and generated OWL constructs (classes, properties, cardinality restrictions). This clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like onto_import or onto_convert.

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 when a PostgreSQL database schema needs conversion to OWL, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among siblings. No exclusions or comparison to onto_import or onto_ingest is provided.

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