quipu_explain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the 'Read-only' tag adds little. The real value is behavioral detail beyond annotations: output shape differs by fact kind, owl:materialize results recurse premises to base facts, and re-matching is described as happening 'currently' (i.e., the answer is evaluated at call time, not stored). It does not say what happens for an unknown or non-existent fact, which is the main missing behavioral note.

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?

One front-loaded sentence gives the core action, then a semicolon-separated enumeration of the three answer shapes, ending with a short safety tag. Every clause carries information; no filler. It is dense to the point of being terse, and the trailing 'Read-only' duplicates an annotation, but the structure is otherwise 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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to characterize return values — and it does so thoroughly for the three fact kinds, which is the crux of this tool. With a complete input schema and accurate annotations, the remaining gaps (behavior on a missing fact, pagination/size of a deep recursion) are modest rather than crippling.

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%, so s/p/o and depth are already documented as IRIs, a literal, and a recursion depth default of 5. The description clarifies that the three parameters together denote a single fact whose derivation is walked and that recursion bottoms out at base facts, which helps interpret depth. It does not add format or edge-case semantics (e.g., literal typing, depth=0 behavior) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 fits.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Walk a fact's derivation chain') and then enumerates three fact kinds and exactly what each returns (transaction/source, rule id + re-matched premises, axiom families recursed to base facts). That is far more precise than a name restatement. It stops short of naming a sibling such as quipu_reason or quipu_impact as the contrasting operation, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'explain a derivation' framing: an agent can infer it is the provenance-inspection tool rather than the derivation-producing one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many quipu_* reasoning/graph tools. Guidance is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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