describe_individual

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently states the returned information (class and property values), but lacks details on format or whether it includes inferred properties. No side effects are implied.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No wasted words, and it efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could elaborate on output format or whether inferred properties are included, but it's sufficient for most use cases.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description ('个体的 local name'). The tool description adds value by stating output contents, but that pertains to overall behavior rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb '描述' (describe) and resource '个体' (individual), listing what it describes: class, data properties, object properties. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'describe_class' and 'list_individuals'.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving detailed individual information but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_individuals' or 'search_entity'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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