robot_filter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the select parameter (controlling which related terms to include) and the trim flag (controlling axiom requirement for ALL or ANY objects). However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies input in place, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, the description is somewhat transparent but lacks completeness.

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: two sentences conveying the core purpose and key parameters. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words. However, given the complexity (21 params), a slightly longer description could improve completeness without being verbose.

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?

The tool has 21 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description only covers a fraction (4 parameters) and does not explain the output or provide context for the many boolean flags, file path parameters, or extra_args. For such a complex tool, the description is significantly incomplete, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains four parameters (term, term_file, select, trim) but leaves 17 out of 21 parameters completely undocumented (e.g., exclude_term, axioms, signature, preserve_structure). The description adds meaning for a few critical params but fails to cover the majority, leaving the agent blind to many options.

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: 'Selectively copy axioms from an ontology (inverse of remove).' It specifies what it does (copy axioms), the resource (ontology), and distinguishes from sibling tool robot_remove by noting it is the inverse. The mention of parameters (term, term_file, select, trim) further clarifies functionality.

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 gives implicit guidance by stating it is the 'inverse of remove,' which hints at when to use it versus robot_remove. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., input ontology must be specified), and no alternatives listed. Usage is implied but not fully explicit.

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