mesa_ols_generate_template

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never states whether the tool only computes a template or persists/writes anything, whether there are side effects, whether an existing ontology is required to be loaded, or what the returned object looks like. 'Drives the ... auto-generated AVU forms' hints at a derived artifact but leaves the mutation/reversibility profile unclear.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the concrete deliverable before the downstream rationale. No filler, though the second sentence is arguably context rather than actionable instruction.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value; it partially does ('prefix + top-level term fields'), which is the most valuable part. However, it omits any behavioral or usage detail, leaving the definition only minimally sufficient for a no-annotation, no-output-schema 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter (ontology_id) already documented with an example in the schema. The description does not add syntax or semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Generate') and a well-defined resource ('a SCHEMAS-compatible template (prefix + top-level term fields) for an ontology'), and adds the downstream purpose (driving esiil-portal AVU forms). It is clear what the tool produces, though it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling mesa_datacite_template.

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 gives context about what the output feeds into but provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as mesa_datacite_template or mesa_avu_from_term. An agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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