okf_impact_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of signaling behavior. 'Report' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is useful, but the description does not disclose how transitive links are computed, what the bundle parameter affects, or any permissions or performance considerations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, restatement, or irrelevant details. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its scope.

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 tool with one required parameter, the description provides enough to make a basic call using 'concept'. Yet the lack of an output schema, the unexplained 'bundle' parameter, and absent sibling differentiation leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether this is the right 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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter details. It clarifies that 'concept' is the focus of the link report, but the optional 'bundle' parameter is entirely unexplained.

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 states a clear action, 'Report', and a specific resource: 'outbound / inbound / transitive links for a concept'. It makes the tool's core function easy to grasp, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like okf_related_tool or okf_get_concept_tool.

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 purpose statement: use this tool when you need outbound, inbound, or transitive link information for a concept. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tool should be preferred in overlapping scenarios.

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