okf_related_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add meaningful behavioral context: it defines 'related' as link degree (inbound + outbound count) and indicates top-k ordering. However, it does not disclose sorting direction, exact matching semantics, bundle scoping, or whether the operation is a pure read with no side effects.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core ranking metric is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a tool that could be summarized in one line, though the brevity does contribute to the parameter-semantics gap.

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?

Given three parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It leaves key semantics unresolved, especially the bundle parameter and the role of concept. The output schema may cover return shape, but it cannot substitute for missing input and selection semantics.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the three parameters. 'Top-k' loosely maps to k, and 'concepts' loosely maps to concept, but bundle is completely unexplained. The description provides almost no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema shows.

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 'Top-k concepts by link degree (inbound + outbound count)' uses a clear verb-plus-resource structure, states the ranking criterion, and distinguishes this from generic search or context tools. However, it never explicitly says it operates relative to a supplied concept, which is the required parameter and a core part of the tool's purpose.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the many siblings such as okf_search_tool, okf_get_concept_tool, or okf_context_tool. The behavior implies a use case (ranking related concepts by link degree), but no explicit usage context, conditions, or alternative exclusions are provided.

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