robot_expand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states that the tool expands macros into axioms, but omits prerequisites, side effects (e.g., whether original annotations are preserved), permissions needed, or any destructive potential. The description is minimal, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise at three sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence. However, it could benefit from a more structured layout (e.g., bullet points for parameters) to improve scannability. The lack of whitespace reduces readability.

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 (14 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and 25 siblings, the description is insufficient. It only covers the macro expansion aspect and a few parameters. The output schema exists, but the agent lacks guidance on input/output file handling, prefixes, and other controls, making it hard to use correctly.

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 0%, the description must explain all 14 parameters. It only details three (expand_term, no_expand_term, annotate_expansion_axioms). Common parameters like input, output, prefixes, etc., are left undefined, forcing the agent to rely on naming conventions or external knowledge.

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 core purpose: 'Expand shortcut annotation properties (macros) into OWL axioms.' It uses a specific verb ('Expand') and resource ('annotation properties'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like robot_annotate (which adds annotations) or robot_collapse (which reduces).

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 three key parameters (expand_term, no_expand_term, annotate_expansion_axioms), but lacks any context on when to use this tool versus the 25 sibling tools. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternative names are mentioned, so the agent has to infer the appropriate usage from the purpose alone.

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