lbb_ground

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true, so the tool is read-only. The description does not contradict this. However, it adds no further behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as performance characteristics or side effects. For a read-only tool, the bar is lower, but the description is still minimal.

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 extremely short (two sentences), but it is unclear and poorly structured. It tries to list three actions in a run-on sentence, making it hard to parse. It is concise but at the cost of clarity.

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 has 11 parameters, 3 distinct actions, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the actions differ, or how to use the parameters. A more detailed description is needed for such complexity.

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 91%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds only a hint of meaning for 'prefix', 'free text', and 'graph groundability', but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 states 'Ground terms to the graph's published vocabulary' which gives a general purpose, but the subsequent sentence is fragmented and confusing. The three sub-actions are listed without clear connection to the main purpose. It does not effectively distinguish from sibling tools with similar names like lbb_decode or lbb_observe.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lbb_search or lbb_inspect. The three sub-actions are mentioned but without context on choosing between them or when to use this tool over others.

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