onto_shacl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses the validation behavior and return value (conformance report with violations). However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., no data modification) or error conditions, but the read-only nature is implied.

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: the first states purpose and scope, the second adds key details. No redundant or extraneous information. Highly efficient.

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 covers the tool's action, constraints checked, and return type. Since there is no output schema, mentioning the conformance report is helpful. It could mention error handling or required state (loaded ontology), but it is adequate for a validation 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%; both parameters have descriptions that explain their role. The description adds general context but no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the verb 'Validate', the resource 'loaded ontology data against SHACL shapes', and specifies the constraints checked (cardinality, datatypes, class constraints). This provides a specific purpose that distinguishes it from generic validation tools like onto_validate.

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 for SHACL-based validation by naming the constraint types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like onto_validate or onto_validate_clinical, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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