robot_merge

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavior: by default, import closures are merged and owl:imports statements are removed. However, it does not mention behaviors like annotation handling, prefix options, or output location.

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?

Three sentences, each valuable: tool definition, input specification with examples, and default behavior. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with key information.

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 17 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should cover more. It adequately explains input methods and default collapse behavior but omits output, working directory, catalog, prefixes, and other essential parameters. The presence of an output schema (context) reduces the need to describe return values, but parameter documentation is insufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains three parameters (input, input_iri, inputs) with usage details and examples. But the remaining 14 parameters (output, collapse_import_closure, include_annotations, etc.) are not explained, leaving a significant gap.

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 merges OWL ontology files into a single ontology, specifying the resources (input paths/IRIs) and how to provide them (input, input_iri, inputs). This distinguishes it from siblings like robot_unmerge and robot_collapse.

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 says when to use the tool (combine ontology files) and gives examples of glob patterns. It does not state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides differentiation.

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