onto_lint

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

While 'check' implies a non-destructive read operation, the description does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it mention any authentication or performance considerations. With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 tells what the tool checks but does not describe the output format or whether it modifies the ontology. Given no output schema, some information about return values would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds general context about the tool's purpose (what issues it checks) but does not enhance the semantics of individual parameters beyond the schema.

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 tool's action ('Check') and resource ('ontology for quality issues'), listing specific issues (missing labels, comments, domains, ranges). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like onto_align 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as onto_lint_feedback. The description does not mention any prerequisites or when not to use it.

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