get_taxonomy

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only taxonomy lookup and adds useful sequencing context, but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or whether the result is cached/static. For a zero-parameter retrieval tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the key usage instruction. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding or invocation.

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?

The output schema exists, so the description need not document return values. With zero params and a clear overview purpose, it is nearly complete; only explicit read-only/behavioral confirmation is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description cannot add parameter-level detail, and none is needed.

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/resource pair ('Get the Lumis value chain taxonomy') and enumerates the returned components: phases, areas, and knowledge categories. It also distinguishes itself as a foundational overview tool with 'Call this first,' which helps separate it from siblings like search_knowledge or get_terminology.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call this first to understand what domains Lumis covers and how knowledge is organized.' However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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