quipu_ask

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the discovery-mode behavior and the fact queries are curated and self-describing, but says nothing about what happens for an unknown name, error behavior, or result shape.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, with the discovery mode placed second. The parenthetical example list is useful but slightly bulky; nothing is truly wasted.

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?

As a dispatcher over a catalog, the description explains both modes and directs the agent to the catalog for parameter details, which is the key missing piece an agent would otherwise lack. Without an output schema, the absence of any return-value description is a minor residual gap.

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 both the name/graph/params fields and the discovery convention are already documented in the schema. The description adds value mainly by pointing to the self-describing catalog as the source of parameter names and types, plus a few example query names.

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 and resource ('run a curated, parameterized named query by name') and contrasts it with the alternative of hand-writing SPARQL. It does not name the likely sibling (quipu_query) explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than direct.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: call with no name or name='list' to discover the catalog, otherwise supply a name. It does not state when to prefer this over quipu_query or quipu_queries, so there is a small gap in routing guidance.

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