lbb_inspect

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the description's 'Read' framing. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation: schema does not run validation, ontology_conformance serves a durable report, and entity returns a bounded edge neighborhood. These specifics help the agent predict side effects and scope.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds either action enumeration, behavioral clarification, or routing guidance. The action list is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, but it is not padded with filler.

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?

For a tool with 11 action variants and 16 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves many actions unexplained, including guide, ontology, metadata, state, history, transitions, and why. It also does not describe return shapes or parameter combinations. The description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation across the full action space.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the description needed to compensate for undocumented parameters such as name, top_k, relation, entity_type, source_name, source_type, target_name, and target_type. It does not address these, instead focusing on action-level meaning. The description adds some high-level context for action selection but leaves many parameter semantics unresolved.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read graph context and exact graph facts') and enumerates all 11 action variants, giving the agent a clear sense of the tool's domain. It also distinguishes the tool from lbb_query. However, 'graph context' is somewhat vague, and the action list alone does not fully define what each action returns.

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 directs the agent to lbb_query for precise SPARQL property path selection, which serves as a clear when-not-to-use signal. It also gives targeted usage context for schema, ontology_conformance, and entity actions. It does not explain when to use the remaining actions, but the core routing guidance is present.

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