robot_reduce

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool performs a destructive operation (removing axioms) and describes the motivation (keeping ontology minimal). It does not cover authorization or side effects, but the core behavior is adequately communicated.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence immediately stating the primary action. Every sentence provides necessary context (what, why, when), and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 14 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description fails to explain how to use any of the parameters, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. The purpose is clear, but parameter usage is entirely undocumented.

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%, and the description adds no information about any of the 14 parameters. It only describes the overall function, leaving the agent with no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and types in the schema. This is a critical 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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'redundant subClassOf axioms' with a reasoner. It explains the reasoning process and distinguishes it from siblings like robot_reason (pure reasoning) and robot_remove (generic removal), making the purpose specific and unique.

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 implies usage after reasoning ('After reasoning, some asserted subclass relationships become redundant'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like robot_reason or robot_remove for non-redundancy tasks.

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