lbb_inspect

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, explicitly stating 'Read graph context and exact graph facts.' It adds value by detailing what each action returns (e.g., 'entity returns one node's metadata, scalar attributes, bounded edge neighborhood...') and clarifies that schema does not run validation. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary sentence, lists all actions, and provides details for key ones. It is reasonably concise with no obvious redundancy, though some actions remain unexplained.

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 complexity (19 parameters, 11 actions, no output schema), the description provides an adequate overview but leaves some actions (e.g., guide, state, history) undefined. It mentions alternatives to sibling tools but could be more comprehensive in explaining parameter usage per action.

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 only 42% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining actions and their expected outputs (e.g., 'schema reads...without running validation'). However, it does not map parameters to actions explicitly, leaving the agent to infer which parameters are relevant for each variant.

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 tool's purpose as 'Read graph context and exact graph facts' and lists specific actions (e.g., ontology, entity). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly mentioning alternative tools like lbb_query and traverse.

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 guidance on when to use specific actions (e.g., 'schema reads active ontology/SHACL bundle metadata without running validation') and directs users to alternatives like 'Use traverse for bounded path expansion or lbb_query for precise SPARQL edge selection.' However, it does not give explicit criteria for choosing between actions or state when not to use the tool.

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