lbb_ground

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details: never fabricating names, narrowing to real vocabulary actions, and a grounding report for audit. No contradictions with annotations; description adds valuable context beyond what annotations provide.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose but lists three actions in a dense sentence. While concise, it could be better structured with bullet points for clarity. It earns its keep but has room for improvement.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not detail the structure of responses (e.g., what the 'groundability report' contains, the format of resolved items). For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, this is incomplete. The description needs to explain expected outputs.

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 descriptions on all parameters. The description adds value by linking parameters to actions (e.g., '[complete] Text prefix') and clarifying defaults (e.g., top_k default 8). This goes beyond the schema's isolated descriptions.

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 that the tool grounds terms to graph vocabulary, with three distinct actions (complete, resolve, audit) that differentiate it from siblings. The verb 'ground' and resources 'terms to graph vocabulary' are specific.

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 explicitly advises using the tool 'before you query or write' to avoid guessing vocabulary, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, missing some exclusion guidance.

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