quipu_fragments

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior in "bounded" (results are capped/paged) and wildcard semantics for omitted terms, but it omits what an unbounded pattern (all terms absent) does to cost, whether there are max pageSize limits, and anything about result structure.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; the pagination/wildcard note comes second where it belongs. It is efficient, though the terseness is achieved by dropping information rather than by compressing it.

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?

For a 5-parameter, 0%-documented, open-world query tool with no output schema, the description leaves too much undefined: what a "fragment" contains, whether omitted terms yield a full scan, pagination limits, and any indication of result shape or ordering. An agent could call it but could not predict cost or interpret what comes back.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden and does partially: it explains that page/pageSize control pagination and that missing subject/object/predicate act as wildcards. It adds no meaning about match mode (exact IRI vs substring vs prefix), value formats, defaults, or page-size bounds, so half the semantic load is still missing.

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?

"Read a bounded triple-pattern fragment" gives a verb (read) and a resource (triple-pattern fragment), which is more than a tautology, but "fragment" and "bounded" are unexplained jargon and nothing distinguishes this from sibling retrieval tools like quipu_query, quipu_search_facts, or quipu_knot. An agent can guess this is pattern-based triple retrieval but not how it differs from the many other query surfaces.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of any alternative among the ~70 siblings, several of which (quipu_query, quipu_hybrid_search, quipu_search_facts, quipu_unified_search) plausibly overlap. The only implicit usage signal is "absent terms are wildcards," which describes mechanics, not selection.

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